THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8389 of 2010 Dated:15.04.2010 Between: Gandi Hari. …Petitioner and The Mandal Development Officer, Atchutapuram Mandal, Vishakapatnam District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8389 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Dosuru Gram Panchayat in Atchutapuram Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. The said Gram Panchayat was allotted/sanctioned the work of laying a road under the Rural Connectivity Project. The work was sanctioned under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). In accordance with the said instructions, the petitioner convened the meeting on 27.02.2010. The Gram Panchayat passed resolution nominating the petitioner as Convener to execute the work. In accordance with the resolution of the meeting, the petitioner opened bank account in the State Bank of India, Pudimadak Branch on 02.03.2010. He also sent a copy of the resolution to respondent No.1 for forwarding to respondent No.2, who is the sanctioning authority. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5, who is Upa Sarpanch, convened an emergency meeting on 27.03.2010 and got a resolution passed nominating N.Srinivas, 4th Ward Member of Dosuru Gram Panchayat, to execute the work. The petitioner contends that the Upa Sarpanch is not competent to convene the meeting and any resolution passed at his behest is void in the eye of law. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner for some length of time. According to him, the resolution dated 27.02.2010 is valid and respondent No.2 should be directed to act on such resolution. He also submits that the resolution passed at the instance of respondent No.5 on 27.03.2010 is void in law, and therefore, the same cannot be the basis for entrusting the work to respondent No.6. This Court after giving due consideration and perusing the material is convinced that the dispute is between the two warring groups of the Panchayat; one headed by the petitioner and the other headed by the Upa Sarpanch. The petitioner contends that the resolution passed in the meeting convened by Upa Sarpanch is illegal and void. If that be so, proper remedy is to approach the Government for cancellation/suspension of the resolution under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act). In this writ petition it is not proper for this Court to adjudicate the dispute, especially when both the resolutions were passed by sufficient quorum of Panchayats. It is for the Government to decide which one of the resolutions is valid. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation to the Government seeking cancellation or suspension of the resolution dated 27.03.2010. As and when the same is made, the Government may issue notice to the parties likely to be affected and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 246 of the Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.04.2010 Note: Issue C.C within one week. B/o. vs