THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22025 of 2002 DATED:13.08.2009 Between: Sri M.Sivaprasad, S/o.M.Venkaiah. …Petitioner And The District Collector & Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22025 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner filed a criminal case before the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool (JFCM), against respondent Nos.6 and 7 under Sections 441, 425, 426 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the complaint he alleged that respondent Nos.6 and 7 and another trespassed into the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents belonging to the petitioner in 1999- 2000 for laying a road. Again in February 2002 they trespassed into the land to widen the road to 30 feet wide and thereby they committed offence. Learned JFCM endorsed the complaint under Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the Police for investigation and filing charge sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide proceedings dated 16.11.1999 for formation of approach road to Residential College at Munagalapadu, and likewise, sanctioned a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in proceedings dated 19.12.1999 for construction of four additional class rooms in second phase for Residential School at Munagalapadu. These works were entrusted to the third respondent. The petitioner alleges that there is no such residential college or residential school, and therefore, sanction of funds for formation of approach road to College and construction of class rooms amounts to misappropriation, nor there is any approach road from NH 7. The petitioner states that by proceedings dated 06.06.2001 first respondent accorded administrative sanction for formation of approach road to Balasai Residential School, Munagalapadu, under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) grants and except it, there are no other works taken up under the scheme. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that funds from MPLAD are utilized by the authorities against the guidelines, and respondent No.6 and other private persons misappropriated the funds by making misrepresentation. Therefore, he filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a declaration that action of the respondents for according sanction of MPLAD funds for private persons for private works against the guidelines as illegal and improper, and to appoint Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigating agency to investigate and file criminal cases against respondent Nos.6 and 7. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Insofar as the allegation of trespass against respondent Nos.6 and 7 is concerned, the petitioner already filed a criminal complaint before the Court of JFCM which was referred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered. The other allegation of the petitioner is that the MPLAD funds were sanctioned by the official respondents to respondent Nos.6 and 7 for their private purposes contrary to MPLAD scheme has to be examined with reference to the scheme itself. This Court has perused the scheme annexed to the writ petition. Paragraph 2.7 of the scheme communicated by Central Government to all the District Collectors is to the effect that the works enumerated in Appendix-1 thereto are only illustrative and that the works enumerated under Appendix-2 are not permissible under the scheme. Even as per Appendix-1, construction of roads including part roads, approach roads, link roads etc., in villages, towns and cities is within the scheme and funds can be utilized for the purpose. Appendix-2 does not prohibit the constriction of class rooms in any school or college. Therefore, the sanction accorded by the District Collector for laying the approach road as well as construction of class rooms, cannot be faulted. Whether in fact there is a residential college which needs an approach road or whether there was a need for construction of class rooms are matters in the realm of fact, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into these matters. Furthermore, the works were sanctioned in November 1999 and December 1999, whereas the writ petition was filed on 01.11.2002 after lapse of three years. This delay is crucial in the matter. If only the petitioner had approached this Court immediately after the District Collector had sanctioned, things would have been different. The petitioner approached this Court after lapse of three years, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in this case. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.08.2009 vs