HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 2024 of 2009 MONDAY THE 3RD AUGUST, 2009 Between: Peddinti Muralidhar ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Krishna District And two others .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that there is a water tank in Sy. No. 425/1 in admeasuring Ac.3.25 cents situated in the middle of Kaikaluru village, Krishna District and more than 2000 families depend on the water stored in the tank. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent, in collusion with some ward members, with an intention to usurp the public funds, passed a Resolution dated 24.2.2007 for closure of the tank on the allegation that water is getting stagnated, and it was decided to close the tank by filling it with the soil and make use of the tank land for opening vegetable market and construction of dhobi ghats. The petitioner further states that even though Resolution was passed, the 1st respondent has not accorded permission for closure of the tank, and in spite of the same, the 3rd respondent was taking steps to close the tank. Then, the petitioner made representation dated 30.01.2009 requesting the 2nd respondent to stop illegal closure of the tank by the 3rd respondent. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent neither passed any orders on his representation nor prevented the 3rd respondent from closing the water tank. The 3rd respondent-Sarpanch of Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat has filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He submitted that the source of water to the tank in question is only rain water. Due to shortage of rain fall, the tank is not getting filled up substantially, and due to increase in population of the village, the tank is getting filled up by drain water, and thus the tank got polluted and is not useful even for washing the clothes. Apart from that due to dumping of wastage, there is breeding of mosquitoes in the area, causing health hazard to the villages. Under those circumstances, the President of Rajaka Seva Sangham, gave a representation to the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat stating that the tank is not useful for washing purposes, and the same may be used for any other public purpose. Taking into consideration the public health at large, the 3rd respondent unanimously resolved in its urgent meeting held on 24.2.2007 to close the tank by leveling it with soil. In pursuance of the Resolution, a request was made to the District Collector through the Mandal Revenue Officer for according permission to close the tank for utilization of the land for public purpose, and accordingly, the District Collector accorded permission vide proceedings dated 13.08.2008 for levelling the tank and also granted Rs.2,00,000/- for the said work under A.C.D.P. funds and the Works Committee commenced the execution of work and the work is almost at the final stage. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Sanding Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the material placed on record. From the narration of the stand taken by the respective parties, particularly respondent No.3, it is clear that in an Urgent Meeting held on 24.02.2007, the Gram Panchayat, after considering the representation of Rajaka Seva Sangham, passed a Resolution for closure of the tank in question, as it became unfit for use. The District Collector, in pursuance of the Resolution, accorded permission to close the tank in question by filling it with soil in the interest of the general public by sanctioning an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the work of closure of the tank in question was allotted to the Works Committee, which, even executed the work, which is at the final stage. Be that as it may, even though the petitioner questioned the closure of the tank in question, the fact remains that the petitioner also participated in the Urgent Meeting held on 24.04.2007 as is evident from his signature that is found on the Resolution, and in the absence of any reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner disputing his signature and participating in the meeting, he cannot be allowed to question the decision taken by the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat to close down the water tank in question. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 3rd August, 2009 bcj