HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 6725 OF 2003 Dated 27th January, 2010 Between: The Gram Panchayat, Pedda Mandava, rep., by its Upa Sarpanch/Incharge Sarpanch, Kode Brahmaiah, R/o. Peddamandava Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Dist. – Khammam and another ………Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam and four others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1 : None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the removal of silt in Survey Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of Pedda Mandava Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners and also for respondent No.1. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.2 to 5. A perusal of the record shows that after the filing of the counter affidavit by respondent Nos.1 and 2, this Court passed a detailed order on 28-04-2003. It has been observed in the said order that while petitioner No.1 wanted to desilt the tank situated within the village and its administrative jurisdiction, respondent No.1 has taken the stand in the counter affidavit that the removal of the sand from the rivers other than Krishna, Godavari and Penna is prohibited by the directions of this Court in another writ petition and, therefore, no removal of sand as contemplated by petitioner No.1 - Gram Panchayat is permissible. This Court clarified that if the petitioners intend to remove the silt only from the village tank and not from the reaches of Munneruvagu, there could possibly be no objection for the respondents for such desilting. In order to take a decision on this aspect, this Court directed the petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the District Collector – respondent No. 5 within 15 days and directed respondent No.1 to resolve the controversy by passing appropriate orders within a period of 30 days from the date of making representation by the petitioners. At the hearing, no one is present either for the petitioners or for respondent No.1 to appraise this Court of the action taken on the above mentioned directions given by this Court. In the absence of any specific grievance expressed by the petitioners, it is reasonable to presume that appropriate orders would have been passed by respondent No.1. If no such order has been passed so far and the grievance of the petitioners still subsists, respondent Nos.1 and 5 should take expeditious action to comply with the direction given by this Court in the aforestated order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 27th January, 2010 ks