IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 338 of 2008 Between: Mamillagudem Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, G. Veera Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, age 47 years, R/o. Mamillagudem Village, Mothey Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Nalgonda. 2 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, Nalgonda. 3 The Project Director, DWMA, Nalgonda. 4 K. Devi Singh Naik, S/o. Gopal Naik, R/o. Naidupalem, Anumala Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for Respondent no.4: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 28-09-2007 of respondent No.3 whereby the contract work awarded in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and allotted to respondent No.4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that consequent on the cancellation of contract earlier granted to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,72,409/- was paid to the labour under NREGS program and the balance work, which was handed over to respondent No.4, was also completed by him. The petitioner has not filed any reply-affidavit controverting these averments. In view of the same, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that certain payments are due to the petitioner towards the work executed. If any such dues are payable to the petitioner, dismissal of this Writ Petition will not preclude it from initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amounts, allegedly, due to it. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.353 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd June, 2008 LUR