IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11016 of 2009 Between: V.Venkateswara Rao S/o.Veerabhadrudu R/o.Chinamiram Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Chinamiram Gram Panchayath, represented by its Village Secretary, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, Eluru. 4 Raju Vegesana Foundation, represented by its Chairman G. Sathyanarayana Raju S/o. Suraparaju, R/o.Chinamiram Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to declare the inaction of the official respondents and not taking any action against the commercial activities of the fourth respondent and not supplying the drinking water to the people of the Chinamiram village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to take necessary action on the representation dated 14.5.2009. Counsel for the Petitioner:S.SURENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner states that he is the Ward Member of the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat, Chinamiram village, and the 4th respondent is the Ex-Sarpanch of that village. During his tenure as Sarpanch, the 4th respondent made a representation to the 3rd respondent for construction of mineral water plant to cater to the needs of the village and its neighbouring villages, and accordingly, the 3rd respondent passed a Resolution and allotted the land in an extent of 297 Sq. metres for the purpose and permitted the 4th respondent to utilize the water from the public drinking water tank in the village, and an agreement to that effect was entered into between the 3rd and 4th respondents, but the 4th respondent, instead of utilizing the drinking water for the villagers, is selling the water to neighbouring villagers and making the villagers of Chinamiram Gram Panchayt suffer. Therefore, the people of Chinamiram Gram Panchayat requested the Sarpanch to stop the 4th respondent from utilizing water from the public drinking water tank commercially. Upon their request, the Sarpanch, on 14.5.2009, made a representation to the 1st respondent-District Collector enclosing copy of the Resolution dated 30.4.2009 passed in the Gramsabha requesting him to stop the 4th respondent from selling the water to the neighbouring villagers, and now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent has not considered the representation made by the Sarpanch nor initiated any action against the 4th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for the 3rd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the written instructions received from the Panchayat Secretary, Chinamiram Gram Panchayat indicating that the 4th respondent-organization is supplying drinking water as per the terms of the agreement. As per the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat from the Panchayat Secretary, Chinamiram Gram Panchayat, and the material papers, which are placed before the Court, they would indicate that the Gram Panchayat, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2005, granted some land to the 4th respondent-organization for establishment of water mineral plant and also permitted it to draw the required water from Kotha Cheruvu with a further condition that it should supply water to the villagers of Chinamiram and other surrounding villagers regularly. It is further stated in the instructions that the 4th respondent is honouring the terms of the agreement by supplying the water to the villagers of Chinamiram village according to their needs and is giving second preference to the neighbouring villagers only and denied the allegations made in the affidavit, and that it is the petitioner, who is obstructing the supply of water to the villagers and creating disturbance. From a perusal of the above instructions received from the 3rd respondent-Panchayat Secretary, Chinamiram Gram Panchayat, it appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent-organization. However, it is the specific stand of the 3rd respondent that the 4th respondent is fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement by supplying the drinking water to the villagers of Chinamiram, but it is the petitioner, whose wife is the Sarpanch of the Chinamiram Gram Panchayat, is causing obstruction to the supply of drinking water. Under such circumstances, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, being the ward member of the Chinamiram Gram Panchayat, is always at liberty to bring this issue to the notice of the Panchayat Secretary at any point of time, in case the 4th respondent violates any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 10th July, 2009 bcj