THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28454 of 2010 Dated 15th February, 2011 Between: Karumanchi Gram Panchayat …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No. 5 : Sri G.Raju For Sri G.Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sanctioning pensions and releasing the funds to the list of beneficiaries in pursuance of the Gram Panchayat’s resolution, dated 03.10.2010, as forwarded by respondent No.5 on 04.10.2010, as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 26.12.2007. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the record. The petitioner, which is the Gram Panchayat of Karumanchi Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, has averred that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 27.03.2006, and G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 26.12.2007, framing guidelines for preparing list of beneficiaries for receiving pensions, that the petitioner has conducted Grama Sabha and selected beneficiaries by resolution, dated 03.10.2008 and that respondent No.5 instead of forwarding the list of the said beneficiaries, has deleted all the names from the list and included the names of 79 others and submitted the same to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for approval. It is further averred that the petitioner thereupon filed W.P.No.1847 of 2009, wherein an interim order was granted by this Court suspending the said list of respondent No.5 and that in C.C.No.1096 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, a counter affidavit was filed stating that the list was rectified in terms of the Grama Sabha’s resolution. As no follow-up action was taken by respondent No.4, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4091 of 2010, which is pending and in the meantime, the respondents have sanctioned pensions to the beneficiaries in terms of the Grama Sabha’s resolution. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that once again a fresh Grama Sabha was held on 03.10.2010 and prepared another list of beneficiaries and forwarded the said list containing the names of 25 old age persons, 18 widows and 4 handicapped persons, to respondent No.5, and that respondent No.5, without forwarding the said list to respondent No.4, has again changed the list. The petitioner stated that against the said action of respondent No.5, it has approached respondent No.4 and that in the meantime, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have sanctioned pensions in favour of the persons, whose names were included in the list submitted by respondent No.5. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. As the petitioner’s grievance pertains to the action of respondent No.5 in allegedly changing the names of beneficiaries contrary to the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and a representation stated to have been made before respondent No.4 is pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon the above questions of fact raised in this writ petition. Instead, it would be more appropriate if respondent No.4 disposes of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36294 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th February, 2011 VGB