HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.11278 of 2010 Dated: 15-09-2010 Between: Nedunuri Ganga Raju …Petitioner AND Govt. of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.11278 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner, Ex-Sarpanch of Malleswaram Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District filed the present writ petition in the form of public interest for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting of Peravali Praja Parishad on 02.05.2010 for taking up various works and not allotting the works to the petitioner’s village on par with other gram panchayats as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and irrational. It is alleged that the said resolution has been passed ignoring the stay orders granted by the Government on the earlier resolutions passed by the Mandal Praja Parishad, Peravali in Memo No.13687/Md1.II-A/2008-2, dated 12.6.2008 and Memo No.13687/Md1.II-A/2008-4, dated 02.08.2008 for utilization of funds in the works proposed in the resolution of General Body Meeting of Peravali Praja Parishad. It is alleged that in the year 2008, resolutions were passed by the Peravelli Mandal Praja Parishad for undertaking various developmental works. Aggrieved by the said resolution, alleging that they have not followed guidelines prescribed by the Government and did not apply funds systematically equal to all villages, the MPTC members approached the Government and obtained stay orders from the Government in the memos as referred to above. In spite of the said stay granted by the Government, the fourth respondent again conducted the General Body Meeting on 02.05.2010 by placing the Agenda before the meeting to undertake certain works in the Peravali Mandal under different heads and while allotting the funds, included the works and funds covered by the stay orders passed by the Government. Hence, the present writ petition. Fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting about the stay granted by the Government against the earlier resolution passed by the Mandal Parishad, Peravali on 14.6.2008 resolving to take up works to a tune of Rs.20,35,000/- from the general funds. Later the Government vacated the stay and requested to take further action in the matter through Memo No.13687/Md1.II-A/2008-8, dated 20.4.2010. As the stay orders on utilization of funds have been vacated, the Mandal Praja Parishad, Peravali conducted its General Body Meeting on 02.05.2010 and passed resolution No.66 to take up the works with a total cost of Rs.99,05,000/- duly earmarking the funds as per the Government norms. It is admitted that the funds to a tune of Rs.22,20,000/- were allotted for construction and development of Anganwadi buildings in the Mandal under 15% Women and Child Welfare funds. Out of 64 Anganwadi Centres, site was allotted to 26 centres to construct the buildings and for remaining centres technical sanction is being issued after allotment of site by Gram Panchayat concerned. The allegation that the funds earmarked for S.T. areas were allotted to non-S.T. areas was denied. It is stated that an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- was allotted to construct the C.C. roads in S.T. areas under 6.6% S.T. funds. Majority members of the Mandal Parishad, Peravali requested the Mandal President on 02.05.2010 for placing the supplementary agenda to take up five works, and that the President, Mandal Parishad was pleased to allow the supplementary agenda into the meeting for approval, the same was communicated to all the members, and that the Body approved the supplementary agenda and passed as Resolution No.67 by following due procedure. It is stated that sufficient funds under different heads were sanctioned to the village of the petitioner i.e. Malleswaram on par with other villages in the Mandal. The only ground on which the present writ petition appears to have been filed in the form of public interest is that in the earlier resolution passed in the year 2008, no funds were allotted to Malleswaram Village, to which the petitioner belongs to and that contrary to the stay orders granted by the Government, the fourth respondent allotted the works and funds to various villages. As seen from the counter affidavit, the stay granted by the Government has already been vacated by issuing necessary directions to take up the works and pursuant to the said directions, the present resolution has been passed to undertake the works by allotting the funds to all the villages including the village of the petitioner and that the said works have to be undertaken as per the majority decision of the Members of Mandal Praja Parishad, Peravali, who represents the people at large. Therefore, the petitioner cannot dictate terms to the Mandal Praja Parishad about spending of the amount as per his wish, by filing writ petition in the form of public interest litigation. On vacating the stay and on passing the resolution to undertake the works, it sub-serves the public interest, but is not detrimental to the public interest as alleged by the petitioner. We see no merits in any of the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.