HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.31088 of 2010 Dated : 10-10-2011 Between : Nallam Venkatalakshmi .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary for Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri D.Y.L.N. Chary Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, Standing Counsel for Anti- Corruption Bureau The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not completing the process of check dam work in Vavilala village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District and not paying the sanctioned amount to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner averred that under resolution dated 22- 9-2009 passed by the Vavilala Gram Panchayat, three check dam works were allotted to her; that even though the work in respect of check dam bearing ID No.118 is completed, respondent No.3 did not pay the sanctioned amount and that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been demanding bribes to release the sanctioned amounts. The petitioner specifically alleged that she has paid Rs.20,000/- to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 22-9-2009 and also another sum of Rs.40,000/- on 29-3-2010 as bribe and that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have colluded with each other in taking bribe and not paying the sanctioned amount. In view of the serious allegations of bribery made against respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are public servants, this Court has suo motu impleaded the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) as respondent No.5 and called for a report. Accordingly, a preliminary report was submitted by respondent No.5 on 14-3-2011 and a final report on 20-4-2011. The said reports will be adverted to a little later. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that administrative sanction for construction of three check dams bearing ID Nos.118, 119 and 120 was given on 27-3-2010; that the said works were to be executed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) by the Gram Panchayat; that under the said program, engagement of contractors is prohibited and that the works have to be executed through the Gram Panchayat only. Respondent No.3 has accordingly denied the petitioner’s allegations that the works were entrusted to her through the Gram Panchayat resolution. It is further averred that the Panchayat Secretary of the Vavilala Gram Panchayat has given a statement that no Gram Panchayat meeting was held on 22-9-2009 and therefore the question of the Gram Panchayat passing the resolution, as claimed by the petitioner, entrusting the three check dam works to her, does not arise. Respondent No.3 has denied his demanding and receiving bribe from the petitioner. The question whether the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution entrusting the work to the petitioner or not, is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to render any conclusive finding thereon. If the petitioner was entrusted with the work and executed the same, she is entitled to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of the amounts due to her. Therefore, no direction for payment of the amount can be given in this Writ Petition. As regards the reports submitted by respondent No.5- Director-General of ACB, both in the preliminary and the final reports, specific findings have been rendered against respondent No.3, Sri Neerati Simhaiah, the then Assistant Project Officer and Sri K. Hari Prasad, Technical Assistant, Nellikuduru Mandal. The report indicted respondent No.3 for abusing his official position and violating G.O.Ms.No.27, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD-II) Department, dated 28-1-2006, Technical Circular No.653EGS/PM(T)/06, dated 24-11-2006, issued by the Commissioner of Rural Development, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and also accepting bribe of Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner. Respondent No.5 also found the Assistant Project Officer and the Technical Assistant, Nellikuduru, of having colluded with respondent No.3 in violation of the above mentioned G.O. and the Circular and has recommended prosecution of respondent No.3 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and termination of the services of Sri N. Simhaiah, Assistant Project Officer and Sri K. Hari Prasad, Technical Assistant, who are contract employees. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate appropriate action, both disciplinary and criminal, in accordance with law against respondent No.3 and two others, in the light of the above mentioned reports of respondent No.5. The Registry shall keep the two reports submitted by respondent No.5-Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, in a sealed cover and forward the same to respondent No.1 for further action. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.39555/2010 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 10-10-2011 AM