IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5125 of 2009 Between: Sambari Kumaraiah s/o. Narsaiah R/o.1-80, Mulkanur village, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Karimnagar. 3 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Parishad, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 Sri Sai Mahila Swasakti Group, Mulkanur, Karimnagar District. 5 The Executive Engineer, PR Division, Karimnagar .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing work orders vide Pro.No.A1/113/06- 07 dt. 24.02.2009 for according works to 4th respondent i.e., Construction of Gowda community hall with an estimated cost of Rs.1.00 laksh and construction of drain in the grave yard with an estimated cost of Rs.50,000/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of guideline issued under G.O.Ms.No.37 PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department, dt. 18.002.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.10 PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dt. 10.01.2006 and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to issue work orders in favour habitation works committee constituted by the Gram Panchayat and pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.ELISHA( SC FOR ZPPS AND MPPS,TEL REG) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.5125 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Court ordered Notice before admission on 16-3-2009 and issued rule nisi on 30-3-2009. On 16-3-2009 interim suspension had been granted which had been continued until further orders. 2. Heard the Counsel on record. 3. Sri Anand, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had referred to G.O.Ms.Nos.37 and 10 and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition to be allowed. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and also Sri Elisha representing the respondents had taken this Court through the respective counter affidavits and would maintain that the said G.Os. not being applicable to be facts on hand, the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 5. The 4th respondent Sri Sai Mahila Swasakti Group, filed W.V.M.P.No.2150/2009 to vacate the interim Order. When the application is taken up for hearing, a request was made for final disposal of the Writ Petition itself and hence the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of finally. 6. The relevant G.Os. had been placed before this Court. 7. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in issuing work orders viz., Pro.No.Ex.A.1/113/06-07 dated 24-2-2009 for according works to 4th respondent i.e., Construction of Gowda community hall with an estimated cost of Rs.1 lakh and construction of drain in the grave yard with an estimated cost of Rs.50,000/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Dept dated 18-2-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.No.10, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Dept, dated 10-1-2006 and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to issue work orders in favour of habitation works committee constituted by the Gram Panchayat and to pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the 1st respondent with an intention for taking up various developmental programs at the Assembly constituency level had introduced Assembly Constituency Development Program (ACDP) program for the year 2007-08. It is further submitted that preceding the same several proposals were made by the local M.L.As. with regard to the developmental works to be taken up at various places of the Assembly Constituencies. It is further submitted that certain works were proposed by the M.L.A. vide representation No.MLA/253/3410/11 dated 3-11-2007 made proposals proposing 12 works with an estimated cost of Rs.8.70 lakhs to the District Collector for sanctioning the same for Indurthy Assembly Constituency among which the petitioners village is also one among the proposed. It is further stated that the District Collector vide proceedings No.PLG.II/204/ACDP/07-Ind dated 13-11-2007 accorded administrative sanction for the said works directing the MPDO’s connected to act as executing agencies and an amount of Rs.0.04350 lakhs (being 0.5% over the value of works sanctioned) shall be utilized by the Chief Planning Officer, Karimnagar under ACDP fund and further directed the executing agency to follow the instructions strictly while executing the works. It is also further stated that the Government had issued guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Dept dated 18-2-2005 for execution of works tied up with rice component and method of entrustment of works by the Panchayat Raj Department under Food for Work program for the works not exceeding Rs.5 lakhs. It is also further stated that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.10, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dated 10-1-2006 as an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-2-2005 wherein it was stated with regard to entrustment of work below Rs.5 lakh without rice component. It is also further stated that in accordance with Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 10-1-2006 the works with an upper limit of Rs.5 lakhs can also be entrusted to Village Level Committees/Self Help Group/User Groups consisting of stake holders. The nominees of the Committee of the group leader should enter into an agreement with the executing agency. It is also further stated that in accordance with Rule 5, the Government had further extended the powers for entrustment of Panchayat Raj works with an upper limit of Rs.5 lakhs without rice tie up to the Works Committee/Self Help Group at the Village level by following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-2-2005. It is also further stated that in accordance with Rule 6 of G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-2-2005 the works shall be entrusted to Habitation Works Committee to execute works dovetailed with rice in that Gram Panchayat and such Committee shall be formed by the Gram Panchayat with Sarpanch as Chairman and MPTC members, Gram Panchayat members, Self Help Group leader will be the members of the Committee and Village Secretary will be the Convener of the said Committee and representations of SC/ST members may be considered. It further states that in any case the Gram Panchayat fails to constitute the above said Committees due to various reasons within a time frame fixed by the concerned MPDO/DLPO then the MPDO concerned to the Gram Panchayat will constitute the Habitation works Committee in the interest of the development of the village. It is also further stated that in the instant case, the MPDO had violated Rule 6(f) of G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18-2-2005 as the Mulkanoor Gram Panchayat which the petitioner is representing as Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency had constituted Works Committee to which the said works are to be entrusted in accordance with the said G.O. It is also further stated that before allotting the said works in the Mulkanoor village to the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent never intimated the same to the Gram Panchayat nor asked the Gram Panchayat to furnish the list of Habitation Works Committee constituted thereunder for execution of works. In stead, the 3rd respondent high handedly issued work orders in favour of the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.Ex.A.1/113/06-07 dated 24-2-2009 entrusting two works viz., (1) Construction of Gowda community hall with an estimated cost of Rs.1 lakh and (2) Construction of drain in the grave yard with an estimated cost of Rs.50,000/-, which is violative of guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dated 18-2-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.10, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dated 10-1-2006. It is further stated that this Court in W.P.No.9215/2007 and Batch passed common orders dated 25-7-2007 wherein this Court categorically observed : “(i) If the contesting respondents to whom works were allotted by MPDO have already completed the works on condition of such works satisfying paragraph 6(j)(k)(m) (n) and (o) of G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dated 18-2-2005, the payments may be made following the procedure contemplated under the relevant financial code. (ii) If the works are yet to be allotted, there shall be a direction to MPDO concerned to allot works only to HWC constituted by GPs”. It is also further stated that in the instant case, the 3rd respondent in collusion with the 4th respondent high handedly issued work orders in violation of Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dated 18-2-2005. The 3rd respondent failed to consider the fact that the Gram Panchayat, Mulkanur had constituted Habitation Works Committee in accordance with the G.O. for execution of the works under acdp 2007-2008. It is also further stated that a representation was made to the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Karimnagar by the petitioner and the Sarpanch of Mulkanur village with regard to the works i.e., construction of Gowda community hall, the Executive Engineer through proceedings dated 29-12-2008 directed the Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub Division, Husnabad to submit a report with regard to the said construction. The Deputy Executive Engineer had directed the Assistant Engineer to report with regard to the said works. The Asst. Engineer vide Letter dated 27-1-2009 made a report that the said building was completed upto basement level. The construction of the building upto basement level was initiated by one Sri Rajiah r/o.Chirumamidi by incurring own expenditure way back in the year 2006 and now the District Collector by virtue of proceedings dated 13-11-2007 accorded the administrative sanction for construction of the said building. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent without following the guidelines and the due procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD (Progs.IA) Department dated 18-2-2005 had issued work orders to the 4th respondent for the reasons best known. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner belongs to T.D.P. who had a rivalry with the local M.L.A. belonging to C.P.I. The local M.L.A. had proposed the works with an estimated cost Rs.8.70 lakhs for according administrative sanction under Assembly Constituency Development Program. The District Collector, Karimnagar in proceedings No.PLG.II/204/A/ACDP/07-IND dated 13-11- 2007 issued sanction orders on the works proposed by the Hon’ble M.L.A. In the said proceedings it is also clearly mentioned that the entrustment of the work under G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12-4-2005 and the subsequent amendment to G.O.Ms.No.11, G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 9-1- 2005 has to be followed scrupulously. It is also further stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings issued by the District Collector, the Hon’ble local M.L.A. had requested the 3rd respondent to entrust the work proposing the persons mentioned in the said letter i.e., Smt.Nomala Manga w/o.N.Sampath who belogs to Sai Mahila Swasakthi group of Mulknur village, chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District i.e., the 4th respondent herein. Smt.Nomala Manga is the President and nominee of the Sai Mahila Swasakthi Group. In pursuance of the said request by the Hon’ble MLA, the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.Ex.A.1/113/06-07 dated 24-2-2009 issued orders to execute the work of construction with an estimated cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and construction of drainage canal besides the grave yard of Mulknur village with an estimated cost of Rs.50,000/-. The said proceedings had been impugned in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the entrustment of work on nomination basis is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18-2-2005 and the same is not correct. G.O.Ms.No.37 is not applicable in the present case also. It is also further stated that the Finance and Planning Department issued G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12-4-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 9-11-2005 deals with Assembly Constituency Develoment Programmes proposed by the Hon’ble MLAs and the entrustment of work to the various groups and persons. So far as G.O.Ms.No.37 and 10 are concerned issued by the Panchayat Raj Department with regard to the Food for Work programme and the work entrusted to the groups without rice component programme and hence the writ petitioner relying upon G.O.Ms.No.37 and alleging that the respondents are entrusting the works to the nominated persons by the Hon’ble MLA is the misunderstanding of the petitioner. The writ petitioner is aware of the aforesaid facts but with a rivalry of politics filed the present Writ Petition to stop the developmental activities in the Village, Mandal and in the entire Constituency. It is also further stated that G.O.Ms.No.11 clearly says that the identifying and selecting the works on the advise of the Hon’ble MLA should prevail because the amounts/grants are to be released from the funds of the MLA. The works are to be entrusted on the proposal made by the Hon’ble MLA. In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 9-11-2005, amendment to G.O.Ms.No.11 is the additional guidelines for execution of the schemes under the Assembly Developmental Constituency Programme. It is also further stated that the estimated cost of Rs.1,50,000/- for executing the works proposed in Mulknur village of Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District. There is no violation of either G.O.Ms.No.37 or any other Rules issued in this regard. The petitioner had also accepted in the affidavit that the works are to be executed under the Assembly Constituency Developmental Programme. It is also pertinent to mention that the District Collector had issued proceedings according sanction about 12 works in various villages of Indurthi Constituency. The petitioner misled this Court by saying that all the works together with an estimated cost of Rs.8,70,000/- of this particular Mulknur village and hence G.O.Ms.No.37 issued by the Panchayat Raj Department in which it was mentioned that the works executing more than Rs.5 lakhs are to be entrusted by following G.O.Ms.No.37/G.O.Ms.No.10. The petitioner’s contention is not correct because the works sanctioned are under the Assembly Constituency Developmental Scheme and hence the G.O. issued by the Planning Department in G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12-4- 2005 and G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 9-11-2005 are applicable. The respondents followed the guidelines scrupulously issued in the aforesaid G.Os. and followed the instructions given in this regard. As alleged by the petitioner, there is no violation in entrusting work to the 4th respondent. The G.Os. mentioned in the affidavit by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the present case. As already stated above, the political rivalry had disrupted the developmental activities in the village. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that the 4th respondent is the organizer of Sri Sai Mahila Swasakthi Group, Mulkanoor village, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is also further stated that the 3rd respondent who is the executing authority had allotted two works i.e., construction of Gouda community hall at Mulkanoor village with an estimated cost of Rs.1 lakh and construction of side drain behind the graveyard with an estimated cost of Rs.50,000/- under Assembly Constituency Development Programme (ACDP) in pursuance of the proceedings No.Plg.II/204/ACDP/07- IND, dated 13-11-2007 of the 2nd respondent in which administrative sanctin was accorded for 12 works including the above said two works. In pursuance of the said allotment and the agreement entered into between the respondents 3 and 4, the construction had been started immediately. While so to his utter surprise the 4th respondent received a copy of the interim order passed by this Court on 16-3-2009 along with a show cause notice wherein the operation or proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 24-2-2009 was suspended. The 3rd respondent had allotted the aforesaid works to the 4th respondent on behalf of the 4th respondent-Self Help Group for better and expeditious execution of the said works under ACDP vide proceedings No.Ex.A.1/113/06- 07 dated 24-2-2009 by following the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18 (Plg.VI) Department dated 9-11-2005 r/w. G.O.Ms.No.11 (Plg.VI) Department dated 2\12-4-2005. The writ petitioner had been filed mainly relying on G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-2-2005 which has no relevance to the present works allotted to the 4th respondent. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.37, PR & RD Department dated 18-2-2005 is applicable for the works pertaining to the Panchayath Raj Department for the works tied up with rice component and without rice component respectively but not the works taken up under the A.C.D.P. Therefore the Writ Petition is misconceived legal exercise by the writ petitioner. It is also further stated that the petitioner due to the political rivalry the Writ Petition had been filed and interim suspension had been obtained. 11. In the light of the reasons well explained in paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, this Court is satisfied that in the present case, the G.Os. on which the petitioner had relied upon may not be applicable and hence the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit is a justifiable stand and hence the action under challenge cannot be found fault at all. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : -8-2009 AM