Vancha Veera Reddy v. 1. State ofTelangana

7. Sri Arakala Gal Reddy, S/o Satthi Reddy Aged about 55 years, Occ. Political Leader R/o Challur Village, Rajampeta Mandal Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 5 in entering into agreement with the unofficial Respondent No. 7 herein for executing work of laying C.C.road in the village, without obtaining any Gram Panchayat resolution and administrative sanction as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutio nal and violative of Sections 52 and 71 of The Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, ! and also violative of G.O.Ms.No. 18 dt.2610312021 issued by Respondent No. 1 apart from severely undermining the powers and authority of the Petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and consequently cancel the agreement with the unofficial Respondent No. 7. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct an inquiry into the illegal action of Respond6nt No. 5 rn entering into an agreement with the unofficial. Respondent No. 7 for laying C.C. road in the village without obtaining administrative sanction from Respondent No.6 Gram Panchayat and submit a report to this Honurable Court in a time-bour-rd manner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PUSA MALLESH I Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 3 & 5: cP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 & 6: SRI P. KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: Mrs. AKULA SUNITHA The Court made the following: ORDER 1 I l I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSI'ICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PBTITION No.14533 of 2023 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.5 in entering into an agreement with unofficial respondent No.7 herein for executing the work of laying a CC road in the village without obtaining any Gram Panchayat resolution and administrative sanction as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also violative of G.O.Ms.No.l8 dated 26.03.2021 and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the Sarpanch of Challur Gram Panchayat. According to him, at the time of filing of the present Writ Petition, unofficial respondent No.7 was trying to enter into an agreement rvith respondent No.5 for laying CC in the village, bypassing the Gram Panchayat, which has not passed any resolution for awarding work in his favour. The petitioner claims to have made a representation on 22.05.2023 urging respondent No.2 not to enter into such an agreement with respondent TMD,] wP 14533 2021 2 No.7 or to cancel the same if it has already been entered into. However, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the unofficial respondent has taken up the rvork of road laying in violation of rules and norms and the official respondents have not responded to the pleas of the petitioner Hence, the pr( scnt Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Respon,Jcnt No.5 has filed a counter affidavit stating that under the Special Development Fund scheme, respondent No.2 has accorded the administrativc sanction for an amount of Rs.48,00,00,000/- for taking up developmental activities in all the Gram Panchayats of Alair Assembly Constituency and five works with an estimated cost of Rs.25,00,000/-. were allotted to Challur Grarn Panchayat. It is submitted that since the (irarn Panchayat has not passed any resolution allotting the work to any c\)ntractor, respondent No.4 took an initiativc by following G.O.Ms.No.3i dated 18.02.2005 and addressed a letter datecl 08.11.2022 appointing unolficial respondent No.7 as the contractor to carry out necessary work. Therefore, according to him, thc concemed MPDO/DLPO can constitute HWC in the interest of the development of I that village. Therefore, the action initiated by respondent No.4 in ( TMOJ wP 14533 2023 3 awarding the contract or entering into an agreement with unofficial respondent No.7 is in accordance with the said G.O. It is submitted that respondent No.7 has completed works and the petitioner has never raised any objection to the same at any point of time and he supported the action of awarding the work to respondent No.7.

4. Respondents No.4 & 6 have also filed counter affidavit confirming the above position.

5. Leamed counsel, however, submitted that the stand of respondents No.4 and 5 is contradictory. The respondent No.4, in his counter, stated that respondent No.4 is no way concemed in allotting the work to the unofficial respondent and it is respondent No.5, who has to say that the CC road is laid by the administrative sanction. Leamed counsel for the petitioner referred to the averment made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 that it is the MPDO, who is authorized to take a decision and that he has appointed respondent No.7 for carrying out the necessary work. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being the Sarpanch, was not even aware of the works being allotted to Challur Gram Panchayat and in the absence ofany resolution TMDJ wP 14s33 2023 4 passed by the Gram Panchayat thereon, the work could not have been awarded to respondent No.7.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that after the work was allotted to respondent No.7, he has carried out the work and that the work w,as conrpleted on 17.05.2023 and the bills have been recorded in the measurement books and only when the payment was due to be made, this Writ Petition has been filed with a malafide intention to extract ceftain monel, lrom respondent No.7. Leamed counsel for respondent No.7 submitte:d that the petitioner, being Sarpanch, ought to have filed the Writ Petit:on on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, but he filed it in his personal capacity and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on lhis ground also.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the mateiial on record, this Court finds that under G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 18.02.2005, the Govemment can entrust the works with an upper limit of Rs.5 lakhs only to Works Committee/Self Help Groups at the village level and the nomince of the Committee or Group leader has to enter into agreement TM D,J wP,14533 2023 5 with the executing agency under the guidelines issued therein and one of the guidelines is that in case any Gram Panchayat fails to constitute the said committee due to various feasons, within a time frame fixed by the concemed MPDO/DLPO, then the MPDO concemed to the Gram Panchayat will constitute HWC in the interest of development in that village. In this case, the stand of the respondents is that the Gram Panchayat failed to constitute the said Committee and therefore, the MPDO-respondent No.4 has taken a decision to entrust the work to respondent No.7. Though the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the allotment of the works to the village has not been intimated to the Sarpanch or any members and therefore, they were not aware that they were required to form the Committee and that the action of awarding the work to respondent No.7 is done behind the back of the Gram Panchayat, this Coufi frnds that the petitioner has filed this writ petition not in the capacity of Sarpanch, but in his personal capacity. The respondents No.4 and 5 have filed their counter affidavits stating that the Gram Panchayat has not passed the resolution and it is not in dispute that respondent No.7 has completed the work of laying the CC ( l I 6 TMD,J wP 14533 2023 R roads rvithin the village and the said work was also recorded in the measurement books. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that t he petitioner has been making representations to the respondents ob.jecting to the works being entrusted to respondent No.7, there is no su,:h evidence filed before this Court. The petitioner, being a Sarpanch of trre village, must be aware of the activity of laying the CC road within the vi[[age, but he has chosen to file this writ petition only after completLon of the entire work. Thereflore, this Court is satisfied with the contentions raised by the respondents in their counter affrdavits and this Courl does not find any merit to entertain this Writ Petition.

8. With the above obseruations. this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orr lcr as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// SD/-T, TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIST NT REGISTRAR I t' StcTloN oFFlcER

1. One CC to Stll PUSA MALLESH, Advocate TOPUCI 2. One CC to SRI P. KISHORE RAO, SC for GRAM PANCHAYATH IOPUC] 3. One CC to Mrs. AKULA SUNITHA, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to CiP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies BN BS s, i l To, HIGH COURT DATED:1'110212025 ORDER WP.No.14533 of 2023 g;ai (r J0 l:r lil25 c' 1 i (I r-l l. o t \\ \ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS E