IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 24062 of 2007 Between: 1 Getta Venkateswar aRao S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Lingareddypalem village Koduru Mandal, Krishna District 2 Chitiprolu Lakshminarasaiah S/o.Raghavaiah R/o.Lingareddypalem village Koduru Mandal, Krishna District 3 Chitiprolu Rama Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.Lingareddypalem village Koduru Mandal, Krishna District 4 Bade Suryanarayana S/o.Venkataswamy R/o.Lingareddypalem village Koduru Mandal, Krishna District 5 Dasari Manikyala Rao S/o.Lakshmna R/o.Lingareddypalem village Koduru Mandal, Krishna District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of AP., rep.by its Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, KRishna District at Machilipatnam 3 The Superintending Engineer, irrigation Circle office Near PWD grounds, Vijayawada,Krishna District 4 The Dy.Executive Engineer, Drainage Division Challapally village & mandal, Krishna District 5 The Asst.Engineer, Drainage Division, Challapally village & mandal, Krishna District 6 Pothaboina Seetaratna Sai babu S/o.Subba Rao Koduru Section-2, AP Formers Management of Irrigation System (Delineation & Formation of Water Userss Association), Koduru village & mandal, KRishna District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction on part of the Respondents 1 to 5 in causing detailed enquiry about the construction of Cattle Ramp on Ratnakodu (Taleru) drain in Lingareddy palem , Koduru Mandal, Krishna district in a less quality and poor condition and cause re-construction of the same is highly illegal, improper unjust arbitrary, dereliction of duties and violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and as a consequential direction direct the oﬃcial respondents to consider the representations dated 10.10.2007 and 7.11.2007 of the petitioners and take suitable action according to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PHALGUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 24062 of 2007 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) This writ petition is ﬁled in public interest by the villagers of Lingareddypalem village of Koduru Mandal, Krishna District. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-authorities have proposed to construct a cattle ramp at Ratnakodu (Taleru) drain in Lingareddypalem village, and the said work is entrusted to the 6th respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the value of the work is purposely estimated to be less than Rs.5 lakhs, so as to allot the same to the 6th respondent on nomination basis. It is further alleged that the 6th respondent is constructing the cattle ramp without maintaining the quality as per the standards prescribed, and inspite of the representation made by the petitioners in this regard, no action has been taken against him by the respondent-authorities. 3. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the oﬃcial respondents. It is averred in the counter aﬃdavit that the work of construction of cattle ramp in Ratnakodu (Taleru) drain is administratively approved by the Engineer-in-Chief. The authorities concerned have valued the proposed cost of work and granted technical sanction. It is further stated that similar procedure was followed when works are allotted to Water Users’ Association, and as such, the work relating to construction of cattle ramp, is allotted to the 6th respondent by following the said procedure. It is categorically stated that periodical inspections are being made and no defects are found in the quality of construction. It is stated that apart from the supervision by the local Sarpanch, the work is being supervised by the quality control staﬀ of the Department. 4. In view of the fact that the concerned Department has estimated the value of work at Rs.4,80,000/-, it cannot be said that the estimates are designed only for the purpose of entrusting the work to 6th respondent by way of nomination. Even with regard to the quality of construction, it is evident from the counter aﬃdavit that periodical inspections are being made and the work is under the supervision of the local Sarpanch, apart from inspections by the quality control staff of the Department. 5. For these reasons, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the allegations levelled by the petitioners. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 1st September 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Ars/ajr To 1 The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of AP., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam 3 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Office, Near PWD grounds, Vijayawada,Krishna District 4 The Dy.Executive Engineer, Drainage Division Challapally village & Mandal, Krishna District 5 The Asst.Engineer, Drainage Division, Challapally village & Mandal, Krishna District