THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11305 of 2008 Date: 29.11.2010 Between : Pothuri Renuka .… Petitioner and The District Collector (P.Raj), Kakinada, East Godavari District and others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11305 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner, claiming to be the Sarpanch of Chinakothalanka Gram Panchayat, Mummidivaram Mandal, East Godavari District, has filed this writ petition challenging the order issued by the 1st respondent in proceedings Rec.No.1985/2008- A5, dated 14.5.2008, whereby she was directed to shift the office of the Gram Panchayat to its own building from the Mahila Mandali building, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. It appears that the Gram Panchayat building was constructed in the year 1992 by taking into account the convenience of the public. At the same time, Mahila Mandali building was also constructed. However, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution No.63, dated 17.1.1994, to shift the office of the Gram Panchayat to function in Mahila Mandali building and accordingly the Gram Panchayat office has been functioning in the said building. Later, the villagers have made a representation to the District Collector, East Godavari District, ventilating their grievance with regard to location of the Gram Panchayat office in Mahila Mandali building. Basing on the said representation, a report was called for from the Extension Officer and also the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, who inturn submitted their report, dated 7.5.2008, recommending for shifting of the Gram Panchayat office back to its own building. Pursuant to the said report, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, dated 14.5.2008. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The sole contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the existing office of Gram Panchayat in Mahila Mandali building is very convenient to the public and there is no need to shift the same back to the Gram Panchayat building. 5. The said contention of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced for the reason that the 2nd respondent, in his counter, has categorically stated that the villagers of the Gram Panchayat gave a representation to the District Collector for shifting the Gram Panchayat office from Mahila Mandali building to the Gram Panchayat building and a report was submitted by the 3rd respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer, Amalapuram, categorically recommending for shifting of the Gram Panchayat office to its own building. Therefore, it is not for the petitioner to canvass the correctness of the orders passed by the 1st respondent. 6. Be that as it may, all through the Gram Panchayat office was functioning in the building which does not belong to the Gram Panchayat at all. What all now directed is to shift the Gram Panchayat office to its own building from the existing Mahila Mandali building. The petitioner alone appears to be canvassing the cause in his individual capacity and there is no resistance, as such, by the Gram Panchayat for shifting of the Gram Panchayat office to its own building. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner is not pleading the cause of the public, but his own cause. 7. Further, whether a particular office should be located at a particular place depends on various factors, which are within the domain and decisions of the authorities concerned, and it is not for the Court to substitute its own judgment in such matters. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 29.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11305 of 2008 29.11.2010 (Msr)