IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2228 of 2009 Between: 1 Pentakaota Grampanchayat Rep. by its Sarpanch, Masa Narasimha Murthy S/o. Late Appa Rao, aged 28 yrs R/o. Pentakota, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Masahebpet (M.S.Pet) Gram Panchayat Rep. by its Sarpanch, Gara Rambabu S/o. Late Gara Lova, aged 45 yrs R/o. Masahebpet, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Deputy Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Pentakota Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Masahebpet Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in proposing to entrust the works sanctioned by the 2nd Respondent in proceedings No. 161/08/DY.S.O. (S.P.IV) dt. 20- 12-2008 with respect to works relating Pentakota & Masahebpet (M.S.Peta) Gram Panchayats to ineligible persons/groups, without entrusting the works to the Village Level Committees of Pentakota Village and Masahebpet (M.S.PEt) Villages of Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam, by not complying with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37 dated as illegal, arbitrary and violative of orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and consequently direct the respondents to scrupulously follow the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37 dt. 18-2-2005. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.VIVEKANAND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed alleging that the respondents are entrusting various developmental works in the limits of the petitioners- Grampanchayats to ineligible persons and groups, for execution, contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18.02.2005. It is the case of the petitioners-Grampanchayats, which are represented by its Sarpanches, that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18.02.2005, relating to reforms in tendering for public works with a view to bring in simplification of procedure, greater transparency and to ensure better quality of works. Under the said G.O., the developmental works like ‘Food for Work’, ‘Indira Prabha’ etc., must be entrusted to the Habitation Level Committee/Village Level Works Committee constituted by the Gram Panchayat. As per the guidelines issued under the said G.O., the petitioners-Grampanchayats constituted Village Level Works Committees in the year 2006 itself, to execute the works of their villages. While so, the second respondent issued proceedings No.161/08/DY.S.O. (S.P.IV) dated 20.12.2008 for development of internal CC roads and CC drainages in Pentakota & Masahebpet (M.S.Peta) Gram Panchayats along with other villages of Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have approached the third respondent, who is the executing agency, to entrust the works specified in the said proceedings dated 20.12.2008 to their Village Level Works Committees, there is no response from him and that he is proposing to entrust the said works to some other self-help groups, which are not eligible to do the said works. Hence, this writ petition. Initially, this Court has observed that the fifth respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO), Payakaraopeta had allotted the works in favour of self-help groups, without consulting the Sarpanches of the petitioners-Grampanchayats, and later on, the matter underwent several adjournments, and ultimately, on 05.06.2009, counter-affidavits were filed by respondents 5 to 7. It is the specific stand of respondents 6 and 7-Panchayat Secretaries, in their counter-affidavits, that by the time of allotment of the works, the petitioners-Grampanchayats have not constituted any Works Committees as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18.02.2005, and because of non-constitution of such Works Committees, the third respondent has entrusted the works to self-help groups, which were already formed under the ‘Velugu Programme’ under the control of DRDA. Similarly, in the counter-affidavit filed by the fifth respondent- MPDO also, it is stated that because of non-constitution of Works Committees by the petitioners-Grampanchayats, the works have been entrusted to self-help groups. On the other hand, in the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is contended that Works Committee was constituted by the first petitioner- Grampanchayat on 05.01.2006 itself and that the second petitioner- Grampanchayat has also constituted such Works Committees, but however, works were not allotted to them. On the last occasion, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced Xerox copy of the resolution dated 05.01.2006 passed by the first petitioner- Grampanchayat to prove that the works committee was constituted by it on 05.01.2006 itself. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the same and submitted that, according to the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the writ petition, the Sarpanches of the petitioners-Grampanchayats were elected only on 02.08.2006, and so, the alleged resolution, dated 05.01.2006, produced by the petitioners, cannot be believed. In the circumstances, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioners to get clarification on this aspect. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, an additional affidavit is filed by one Sanni Satyanarayana, who claims to have worked as Village Secretary of the first petitioner-Grampanchayat. According to the said affidavit, the Works Committee was constituted on 05.01.2007, but by mistake, it was mentioned in the resolution as 05.01.2006, and it was a clerical mistake. This affidavit cannot be relied upon since in the resolution, it is very clearly mentioned that the Works Committee was constituted on 05.01.2006, and by which date, the Sarpanches were not elected. In view of the averment made in the counter-affidavits of respondents 5 to 7 that the works were allotted to self-help groups since Works Committees were not constituted by the petitioners- Grampanchayats at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned action of the respondents calling for interference of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it does not preclude the third respondent from allotting the works in future, if any, to the Works Committees constituted by the petitioners-Grampanchayats as per G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18.02.2005. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 23.07.2009 vrn