IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1685 of 2009 Between: 1 Papinenipalli Grama Panchayat, Rep by its Sarpanch Goteki Venkatalakshmamma, R/o. Papinenipalli Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 Bogulu Grama Panchayat, Rep by its Sarpanch Ravipati Satyavathi, R/o. Bogolu Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Cumbum Prakasam District. 4 Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Office of Mandal Parishad, Ardhaveedu, Prakasam 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing work orders and non execution of works sanctioned in proceedings Rc.No.226/ARD/Plg.I/2008 dt. 14-10-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, irrational, violative of Article 14 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release work order and see that the sanctioned works were executed without any change. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners are Gram Panchayats of Papinenipalli and Bogolu of Prakasam District. Through his proceedings, dated 14.10.2008, the District Collector, Prakasam, the second respondent herein, sanctioned four works in favour of the first petitioner and one work to the second petitioner, estimated at Rs.11,00,000/- in all. The grievance of the petitioners is that the works have not been entrusted to them for execution so far. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to release the work orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. It is, no doubt, true that vide his proceedings, dated 14.10.2008, the second respondent sanctioned works referred to above. However, on 23.01.2009, he issued another proceeding cancelling the said works on the recommendation of the District In-charge Minister. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the proceeding, dated 23.01.2009, they have to work out their remedies. As long as the said proceeding exists, the respondents cannot be compelled to enforce the order, dated 14.10.2008 vis-à-vis the petitioners Gram panchayats. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies vis-à-vis the proceeding, dated 23.01.2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni