THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.1171 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the Ex-Sarpanch of Matukumalli Gram Panchayat, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. He states that while he was Sarpach, he executed certain works during the year 2000-2001 under TFC and JGSY Funds amounting to Rs.1,32,897/- and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.70,125/- was paid to him. But, however, it is his grievance that though the first respondent, namely, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, vide his proceedings, dated 06.04.2002, directed the third respondent-Gram Panchayat, Matukumalli, to pay the balance amount of Rs.62,772/-, as per the report of the Extension Officer, dated 23.03.2002, so far the third respondent has not paid the said amount. Hence, the present writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that when the third respondent failed to pay the amount as directed, a show-cause notice, dated 02.08.2002, was issued by the first respondent. Questioning the said notice, the third respondent filed W.P.No.15653 of 2002 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 09.04.2003 directing the respondents to proceed with the enquiry pursuant to the notice by giving opportunity to the petitioner, but directed the third respondent not to draw any amounts from the Gram Panchayat. This Court issued Rule nisi in the matter as long back as on 07.06.2005. But, as no counter affidavit is filed, when the matter came up for consideration on 31.03.2010, this Court directed the appearance of the respondents and posted the matter today. Today, when the matter is taken up, the third respondent-Gram Panchayat filed counter in the matter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that while the petitioner was working as Sarpanch of Matukumalli Gram Panchayat, he executed certain works and drew a sum of Rs.70,125/-. But, without execution of works, he sought payment of further amount to the tune of Rs.62,772/-. It is also stated that as the alleged works, which are said to have been executed by the petitioner, are during his tenure, nothing prevented him from drawing the amounts. But, it is admitted in the counter that the second respondent has directed the third respondent-Gram Panchayat to pay the amount. However, it is stated that the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution, dated 24.12.2002, unanimously and decided not to pay any amount to the petitioner, as no such works were executed by him. Thus, the third respondent sought dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development. Admittedly, based on the report of the Extension Officer, dated 23.03.2002, the first respondent passed an order, dated 06.04.2002, directing the third respondent-Gram Panchayat to pay the balance amount of Rs.62,772/-, which is not in dispute. If the third respondent has any grievance against the said order of the first respondent, it ought to have questioned the same before the appropriate forum and instead of doing so, it claims to have passed a resolution not to pay the amount to the petitioner, which is not permissible. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent-Gram Panchayat to pay the amount as directed by the first respondent vide his order, dated 06.04.2002, expeditiously. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:13.04.2010 VGB