THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2882 of 2007 (Dated : 26-07-2010) Between: Grama Panchayat, Krishnapuram, rep. by its Sarpanch Smt. Sunkari Pydithalli W/o Narayana Rao Visakhapatnam District …Petitioner A n d The Mandal Development Officer, Padmanabham Mandal, Panchayat Raj Dept., Visakhpatnam District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2882 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been taken out by Grampanchayat, Krishnapuram represented by its Sarpanch Smt. Sunkari Pydithalli seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to construct wall on the western side of the community stage in Gramakantam of Krishnapuram Gram Panchayat is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 2. The Gram Panchayat, Krishnapuram has a community stage (Panchayathi Dimma) in an extent of 12’X26’ feet in the gramakantam. The said community stage is bounded by road on the three sides, i.e., South, East and North. On the western side to the stage, there is a tiled house owned by a private person. The said community stage is being used as a platform to discuss the village issues. The wall of the house situated on the west of the community stage is painted with the images of late N.T.Rama Rao, N.Chandrababunaidu and sitting M.L.A. The Mandal Development Officer, Padmanabham Mandal-1st respondent attempted construction of parallel wall adjacent to the wall on the western side of the community stage. Thereupon, the petitioner- Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 25.01.2007 with 1+8 majority not to construct the parallel wall on the western side of the community stage. Contrary to the resolution, the respondents are pressurizing the petitioner-Gram Panchayat to construct the parallel wall on its western side. Hence, this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in constructing the wall on the western side of the community stage in Gramakantam of Krishnapuram. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 22.3.2007. The Mandal Development Officer, Padmanabham Mandal-1st respondent has filed counter. 4. Kum.J.Lalitha Kumari has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the compound wall of a private house is no way connected with the public community stage. Neither the Gram Panchayat nor the Mandal Parishad is disturbing the compound wall of the private individual. The community stage is meant for all public of the village. As and when the Government programmes are conducted on the stage, the images of the leaders appearing on the wall situated on the west of the stage are giving an impression that programmes are being conducted under their aegis. The construction of wall on the western side of the stage does not cause any inconvenience either to the petitioner- Gram Panchayat or the public. The petitioner being staunch supporter of Telugu Desham wants to have a close visual effect of the images of T.D.P leaders printed on the compound wall. The Gram Panchayat headed by the writ petitioner failed to resolve the controversy within the village and therefore, the Mandal Parishad decided to put an end to the controversy in between the two political parties by constructing a wall on the western side of the stage. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 25.01.2007 not to construct a wall on the western side of the community stage and such is the resolution, the action of the respondents in proceeding with the construction of the wall on the western side of the community stage runs contrary to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. A further submission has been made that the 3rd respondent, i.e., Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Krishnapuram cannot proceed with the construction of the compound wall on the western side of the community stage contrary to the resolution passed by the writ petitioner-Gram Panchayat and instead, the Panchayat Secretary-3rd respondent is bound to implement the decision of the Gram Panchayat. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Armoor Gram Panchayat, Nizamabad v. Government of A.P[1]. Much emphasis has been laid on para 5 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “(5) THE above brief legal position is reiterated to emphasize the utmost autonomous nature of the functioning of the Gram panchayat. Indeed the Act has taken considerable care to bestow the Gram panchayat with almost plenary powers. Executive Authority as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act means the Panchayat secretary to each Gram Panchayat, who is assigned the responsibility of implementing the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat and the Committees thereof (See Section 32 of the Act), and exercise all powers and perform all functions specifically conferred or imposed on the executive authority under the Act Under Section 25 of the Act, it shall be within the powers of the sarpanch to exercise controlling authority over the panchayat Secretary himself starts acting an independent authority ignoring the gram Panchayat or acts in such a manner that he prefers the directions of the District collector/divisional Panchayat Officer to the directions and orders of the Gram panchayat, the same would amount to imposing extra legal authority on the Gram panchayat, which is never the intention of the constitutional amendment or the Act this Court has strong reason to hold that the Panchayat Secretary is bound to implement all the decisions and resolutions of the Gram Panchayat and he is in no way act as a watchdog at the behest of the district Collector/divisional Panchayat officer. The absence of disciplinary power vested in the Gram Panchayat in respect of panchayat Secretary does not mean that the Panchayat Secretary can consider himself as the superior authority to Gram Panchayat”. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is not the Panchayat Secretary who is proceeding with the construction of compound wall to the community stage. It is the Mandal Parishad which decided to construct a wall on the west of the stage, so as to avoid the reflection of the images printed on compound wall of the private individual. 6. Indisputably, the site meant for community stage is bounded by road on three sides. On western side, a wall is being put up so as to avoid reflection of images printed on the compound wall of a private person. The reasoning given by the 1st respondent for construction of compound wall on the western side of the stage appears to be sound. If any public function is held on the stage, appearance of the images of some leaders not connected to the programme would give an impression that the said programme is being conducted under the aegis of the said leaders. Construction of the compound wall on the western side of the stage does not violate any right of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.26-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2882 of 2007 (Dated : 26-07-2010) [1] 2006(2) ALD 180