IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17688 of 2006 Between: N. Ramakrishnaiah … Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Nagendra Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17688 of 2006 ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is two fold, namely; that in respect of the election expenditure incurred for the purpose of holding elections to 19 Gram Panchayats comprising 202 polling stations, a sum of Rs.33,164/- is liable to be paid and that in respect of the election expenditure incurred in holding ZPTC and MPTC elections in 2001 in Wyra Mandal, a sum of Rs.1,87,775/-, which was already sanctioned is withheld. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was the Mandal Parished Development Officer (for short, ‘MPDO’). He was kept in- charge of holding of elections in respect of Gram Panchayats and ZPTC and MPTC. The petitioner is stated to have spent amounts in excess of the budgetary allocations. Therefore, he has made claims for payment of the extra expenditure. With regard to the election to the Gram Panchayat, as against the budgetary allocation of Rs.2,16,896/-, the petitioner is stated to have spent Rs.1,10,664/- in excess. With respect to the elections to ZPTC and MPTC, the petitioner claimed to have spent Rs.3,56,380/- and claimed the balance amount of Rs.1,87,775/-. By Memos dated 12.05.2005 and 18.07.2005 respectively, the claims for payment of the abovementioned balance amounts were rejected by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. In Memo dated 12.05.2005, respondent No.2 stated that the expenditure claimed by the petitioner is far in excess of the expenditure incurred by the MPDOs of the neighbouring Mandals Konigerla, Thallada and Penuballi. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has shown varied expenditure on three different occasions and therefore the said claim lacks credibility. In respect of ZPTC and MPTC elections, in Memo dated 18.07.2005 respondent No.1 stated that on the strength of the bills produced by the petitioner, the balance amount of Rs.1,87,775/- out of the total expenditure of Rs.3,56,380/- was released through D.D.No.00015515, dated 21.11.2002 for settlement of accounts by the Zilla Parishad, Khammam and utilization certificate was also submitted and that within the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was reimbursed to the general funds of Mandal Parishad, Wyra on 15.09.2003 and the remaining amount of Rs.47,775/- is available with the Mandal Parishad General Funds payable towards T.A. to the election staff. The said amount was kept in the general fund, as the expenditure details have not been produced. Insofar as Memo dated 12.05.2005 is concerned, from the details furnished relating to the expenditure incurred by different MPDOs, it is evident that in 202 polling stations, the petitioner has claimed about Rs.3,27,000/- as expenditure while the MPDOs of the neighbouring Mandal polling stations ranging between 206 and 214 have spent a maximum amount of Rs.2,67,844/-. Moreover, as noted above, the petitioner is stated to have given varied figures at different times. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the said memo. With regard to Memo dated 18.07.2005, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said memo is self-contradictory, in that while in one para it was stated that on the strength of the bills produced by the petitioner, the balance amount of Rs.1,87,775/- was released while in the later para, it was stated that a sum of Rs.47,775/- was kept in general fund, as the expenditure details were not produced. In my opinion, respondent No.1 shall reconsider the issue with reference to the bills produced by the petitioner. He shall give a notice to the petitioner and an opportunity of explaining to him about the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. If respondent No.1 is satisfied that the petitioner has produced all the bills, he shall release the entire amount of Rs.1,87,775/- to him. He shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.08.2010. ES