R.Anjana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8641 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is Upa Sarpanch of Duddebanda Gram Panchayat, Penukonda Mandal, Ananthapur District. He is aggrieved by the resolution dated 10.3.2010 passed by the Gram Panchayat – fifth respondent herein; nominating seventh respondent, second Ward member, as Executing Member for the work of road gravelling and CD from Gondipalli to Raghurampalli under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) at an estimated cost of Rs.9,03,591/-. The petitioner’s grievance is as follows. He is member of fifth Ward of Gram Panchayat. The Sarpanch did not convene the meeting on 10.3.2010 as alleged in the resolution dated 10.3.2010. When the meeting was convened, two members walked out of the meeting at the time of recording the minutes. On the day of meeting what happened in the words of the petitioner (in the affidavit) reads as under.

It is submitted that I am the member of the 5th respondent Panchayath representing Ward No.1. The sarpanch did not convene any meeting on 10.3.2010 as alleged in the resolution 10.3.2010 communicated by the 7th respondent. The further observation that two members walked out of the meeting at the time of recording the minutes is also false and incorrect. As far as I am concerned I did not attend the meeting at all. I also learned that one Sri Boya Anjaneyulu, Member, 10th Ward, also did not attend any such meeting. The 7th respondent conveniently drafted the minutes of the meeting stating that the Sarpanch and two members who opposed the resolution walked out of the meeting without signing the minutes and the Attendance Register. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner. Though a reading of paragraph 5 extracted herein above graphically describes proceedings of the meeting on 10.3.2010, the counsel stoutly disputes that resolution was passed.

However, a photocopy of attested copy of resolution of the special meeting is annexed as Ex.P1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed as if a resolution is passed. Further, if there was no resolution of Gram Panchayat, there shall be no cause of action for filing the writ petition. A perusal of the resolution shows that the petitioner herein along with one Boya Anjaneyulu (10th Ward Member) walked out of the meeting. This leads to an inference that petitioner herein could not muster sufficient strength in the Panchayat meeting to oppose resolution nominating 7th respondent as executing agency. His grievance appears to be the same. If that be so and if the petitioner feels that the resolution was not passed in accordance with the Rules regarding proceedings of Gram Panchayat and Conditions thereof promulgated by the Government in exercise of their powers under Section 268(1) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 11.4.1995), he is permitted to approach the Government and seek cancellation of the resolution.

The counsel however submits that if ultimately the work is not done and the funds are misused the very purpose of NREGS would be defeated. This Court is afraid such submission based on suspicion without valid supporting evidence cannot be taken into consideration by writ Court. The affidavit evidence is certainly relevant in a writ Court to certain extent but it cannot be wholesome or gospel truth. Section 17 of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 provides that Gram Sabha shall monitor execution of works within Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat shall make available all the relevant documents for the purpose of conducting social audit. The Act has thus taken sufficient care to see that the purpose of the NREGS is not defeated. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. April 19, 2010 YS ______________

(V.V.S. RAO, J)