IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1988 of 2009 Between: 1 Marella Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Annarugudem(V), Tallada(M), Khammam District. 2 Duggineni Venateshwarlu, S/o. Chandraiah Annarugudem(V), Tallada(M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Khammam 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj,Khammam 3 The Dy.Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Madhira, Khammam District. 4 The Asst. Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (ZP) Tallada, Kahmmam Distict. 5 Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Tallada, Khammam District. 6 Sri Puchakayala Raghavulu, Gramapanchayat Annarugudem(V) Tallada (M) Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents nos. 1 to 5 in taking steps to enter into agreement with the respondents nos. 1 to 5 in taking steps to enter into agreement with the respondents no.6 or his nominees as per earlier resolution dt. 12.1.2009 despite pendency of the enquiry as orders by the respondents no.1 himself on 30.1.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents nos. 1 to 5 to conduct enquiry and entrust the execution of work in favour of petitioner No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.1988 of 2009 Order: The main grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are taking steps to enter into an agreement with the sixth respondent and trying to entrust the work in his favour, despite pendency of an enquiry against him. In spite of granting sufficient time, as no counter affidavit is filed, the first respondent, namely, the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam was directed to appear before this Court. Today, when the matter is taken up, the first respondent appeared in-person and filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners. At para-5 thereof, it is categorically stated as under: “It is further submitted that the Constituency Development funds are earmarked for each financial year for the works are sanctioned to the Gram Panchayat, Annarugudem pertaining to the year 2008-09 and the same was lapsed by 31.03.2009 since work could not be grounded. It is further submitted that from the above stated facts, it is clear that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer could not conduct enquiry due to paucity of time and this Respondent conducted personal hearing on 24.02.2009 and came to the conclusion that the resolution passed on 12.01.2009 is in accordance with law and since funds lapsed by 31.03.2009 the cause in the W.P. does not survive.” At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is closed. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:15.07.2009 VGB