Telangana High Court
WP/23063/2004 of Bogiri Chenchu Lakshmi Vs Dist Collector ({Panchayat Wing) on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23063 of 2004 Between: Bogiri Chenchu Lakshmi W/o.Rama Rao Stuartpuram, Bapatla (M),
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 23063 of 2004
Between:
Bogiri Chenchu Lakshmi W/o.Rama RaoStuartpuram, Bapatla (M),Guntur Dist.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Dist Collector (Panchayat Wing)
Guntur Dist, Guntur.
2 Gajula Harinatha Rao S/o.Kesava Rao
Gram Panchayat, Stuartpuram,
Bapatla (M), Guntur Dist.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus, declaring the respondent No.1 in not taking any action againstthe 2nd respondent pursuant to representations dt 8-4-2004 and 21-11-2004 asillegal, arbitrary unjust and consequently prevent the Respondent No.2 herein fromconducting auction of sand from the lands in Sy.No.990 and 991 of StaurtpuramVillage, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur Dist, and to pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.MACHAVARAM
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR REVENUE
The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be a Gram Panchayat member. It is stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petition that the second respondent who is sarpanch of theGram Panchayat, in violation of the ban imposed by the District Collector, hasresorted to illegal auction of the sand and misappropriated an amount ofRs.3,00,000/- and that a representation was made to the District Collector and afterconducting an enquiry the District Collector has cancelled the cheque power of thesecond respondent. It is further stated that the second respondent is continuing toauction the sand from the lands of scheduled tribe community persons in SurveyNos. 990 and 991 and that representations dated 8-4-2004 and 21-11-2004 weremade to the District Collector and it is alleged that no action was taken on the saidrepresentations. Hence this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader forRevenue.
Admittedly, pursuant to representation of the petitioner and others, an enquiry wasinitiated against the second respondent and action was also taken thereafter.However, in case, the petitioner has any grievance in connection with illegalquarrying of the sand, he can as well raise and discuss the same in the Panchayatmeeting. The Gram Panchayat, as a representative body is competent to discuss theissue of illegal quarry of sand and such other matters. The petitioner cannot invokethe extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and convert this Court as a Forum todiscuss and adjudicate such matters. In these circumstances, there are no merits inthe writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
____________ N.V.RAMANA,J
To
1 Dist Collector (Panchayat Wing)
Guntur Dist.
2 Gajula Harinatha Rao S/o.Kesava Rao
Gram Panchayat, Stuartpuram,
Bapatla (M), Guntur Dist.
3.2CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
4.2CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MVK}