IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22113 of 2002 Between: 1 Mullapudi Venkata Ramana Rao S/o.Venkata Satyanaraya Murthy R/o.Muddapuram Village, Tanuku Mandal, W.G.Dist. 2 Devorasetti China Krishna Rao S/o.Late Ramachandrudu 55 R/o.Muddapuram Village, Tanuku Mandal, W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Division Eluru, W.G.Dist. 2 Vallabhaneni Veeraswamy S/o.Koteswara Rao Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal, W.G.Dist. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Tanuku, W.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent as per his proceedings No.DB/AE1/Marketing/201 dt.26-11-2001 in entrusting the work to the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary and illegal and further direct the 2nd respondent herein not to carry on the work of laying the road from Vinayaka Temple in Muddapuram to Yenamadurru drain link road and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 22113 of 2002 17-04-2009 Oral Order: The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings dated 26-11-2001 bearing reference No. DB/AE1/Marketing/2001 of the 1st respondent whereby the work of gravelling of the link road from Vinayaka Temple, Muddapuram to Yenamduru drain, estimated of a value of Rs.2,35,000-00 is entrusted to the Chairman, Water Users Association, Muddapuram, the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioners are residents of Muddapuram village, Tanuku mandal, West Godavari District. There is a rough road connecting Muddapuram and Dunna of a width of about 35 to 40 feet. On account of encroachments, the rough road is stated to have narrowed down to 8 feet width. The petitioners assert that this is the only path that leads to the burial ground of the village. Earlier, the Panchayat laid gravel on the existing road for the convenience of the villagers, which was however not being properly maintained. While so, the Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,35,000- 00 for laying a metal road up to a length of one kilometer. Initially the Gram Panchayat wanted to take up the work of road laying and got the road surveyed and demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor of the said property. However, the petitioners noticed suddenly that the 2nd respondent was unloading red gravel on the roadside. On enquiries, the petitioners learnt that the Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku had sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,35,000-00 for the purpose of laying the metal road from Vinayaka Temple, Muddapuram to Yenamaduru drain. On enquiry the petitioners also learnt that the 1st respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 26-11-2001 stating inter alia that administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru for the works in Tanuku mandal within the Tanuku market area including the laying of the said road which was entrusted to the Labour Contract Society/Water Users Association/Ryot Clubs/Gram Panchayat, who come forward and that accordingly the work was being entrusted to the 2nd respondent i.e., the Chairman, Water Users Association, Muddapuram on nomination basis without calling for tenders. The petitioners allege that this was done to favour the 2nd respondent and that is why even the Gram Panchayt was excluded from the award of the contract as also the Water Users Association. The writ petition is filed alleging that the respondents in particular the 1st respondent has farmed out State largesse without following a transparent and equitable process. Though the writ petition was filed on 05-11-2002, no counter affidavit is filed. In the circumstances the allegation as to arbitrary exercise of power remains unrebutted. The fact that the entrustment of the work was not to the Water Users Association, but to the 2nd respondent as the Chairman of the Water Users Association in his personal capacity, compels the inference that there has been an abuse of power and an arbitrary exercise of authority by the 1st respondent. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.2,500-00 (Rupees two thousands five hundred only) payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 17-04-2009 Pvks