KODANDA RARAAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GOVT.OF A.P.(PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT) HYD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)FOR the very relief now sought in the writ petition by the petitioner, one of the villagers living in the Gram Panchayat of Ravikampadu, the sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat had earlier held W.P. No. 3097 of 1971 which was dismissed by this Court on 19-1-1973. While dismissing the said writ petition, this Court observed :
"This is not a matter in which this court can pass any order at this stage."
Mr. Eswara Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that though the Panchayat had earlier made representation to the Government questioning the order of the Government dated 12-8-1971 by which the Gram Panchayat was directed not to undertake execution of any of the works in the village, no order has yet been passed by the Government on that representation. It is his case that through enough funds were available at the disposal of the Gram Panchayat, on account of the impugned order of the Government, the Gram Panchayat is unable to undertake any work and not even in a position to repair the bore wells in the Harijanawada and thus provide water to the Harijans. I am unable to understand why the Government has not chosen to dispose of the representation made by the Gram Panchayat against the impugned order of the Government which was passed on 12-8-1971. This court in W.P No. 3097 of 1971 directed the Government to issue a notice to the Gram Panchayat and dispose of the complaint of the Panchayat The Government Pleadei brings to my notice that the Government had referred the matter to the Collector and the Collector has asked for the remarks of Superintending Engineer and that the Superintending Engineer had in bis turn, asked the Executive Engineer; and the Executive Engineer, 1 suppose, is now expecting a report from an Assistant Engineer or a Supervisor. It is the bounden duty 01 the Panchayat to provide drinking water, lighting to the villagers living in the panchayat area; and if a genera! blanket direction of the nature given in the impugned .order is given to the Panchayat. it will certainly paralyse its .admnistraion. I can understand the Government or the Commissioner of Panchyat Raj superseding a panchayat for the reason that the Panchuyat is not fuandioning propery or carrying out its directions, but it can not issue a general direction of the nature as in this case and virtually bring the adminisiration of the Panchayat to a standstill. The powers vested in the Commissioner of the Government are not intended to be used for paralysing the day-to-day administration of the panchayat in the manner done under the impugned order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department dated 12-8-1971. Apart from impleading the Government, the petitioner has also impleaded the Collector (Panchayat Wing) Guntur and the Executive Engineer Panchayat Rej Department as respondents 2 and 3 respectively Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to take action immediately on the representation made by the Panchayat. If no action is taken bv the Government or by Respondents 2 and 3 within two months from today on the representation mad by the Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat will be at liberty to proseed with the works. A writ shall accordingly issue to respondents 1 t' 8 The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above but, in ihe circumstances, without costs. M.N.R. ------- Appeal allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.