WP/24045/2006 of Vellala Cheruvu Gram panchayat, rep.by its Sarpanch Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, on 27 December 2006

O R D E R:

1. Vellala Cheruvu Gram Panchayat, represented byits Sarpanch Smt. Aluri Bharathi, filed the present writpetition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents 1 to 4 in not preventing the 5[th] respondentfrom forming the cement layer unauthorisedly on roadbetween railway track and culvert for a distance of onefurlong at Vellalacheruvu village as illegal, irregular,arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the AndhraPradesh Panchyat Raj Act and Rules framed thereunderand offends Article 14 of Constitution of India andconsequently direct the respondents not to form any suchcement layer on the road without following due process oflaw and until protected water scheme is constructed, andto pass such other suitable orders.

2. The 6[th] respondent was impleaded as party by anorder dated 15-12-2006 in W.P.M.P.No.32739 of 2006. Respondents1 to 4 in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2577 of 2006praying to vacate the interim order granted on 22-11-2006by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30691 of 2006. Respondents5 in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2432 of 2006 tovacate the aforesaid interim order and reply affidavits alsofiled.

3. It is stated that the writ petitioner was unanimouslyelected as Sarpanch of Vellacheruvu Gram Panchyat inthe recent Garama Panchyat Elections and 5[th]respondent was a member of Zilla Prasihad territorialconstituency in the recently held zilla Parishad elections. It is also stated that the petitioner belongs to Congressparty and the 5[th] respondent is inimically disposed of dueto political reasons. It is also further stated that the father-in-law Sri A.V. Chowdary was elected as Upa Sarpanch ofpetitioner’s Gram Panchyat and generously came forwardto construct a drinking water tank in about 12.00 cents ofland and the entire protected drinking water tank at hisown investment and donate for Vellacheruvu village.

4. It is also stated that the protected drinking watertank was constructed about 20 years ago and maintainedby the respondents 2 to 4 at Vellacheru village. This tankis not serving the drinking water needs of residents at large of Vellacheruvu village. The respondents 2 to 4 alsonoticed the same, but advised that the fresh water tankcould be constructed in next summer, as now it is notpossible to construct the same due to lying of water on thelands. The existing pipeline is running beneath thesurface along zilla Parishad road from tank to High Schooland therefrom to railway track. The said pipeline was laidabout 20 years ago and it was damaged at many places. The aforesaid donor had already taken estimation forchanging the damaged pipeline and for replacing newpipeline.

5. It is also further stated that the 5[th] respondentnoticed the said fact of donation and decided to somehowsee that the donation should be avoided. The 5[th]respondent designed an evil idea to somehow see thatthe pipeline should not be formed through the main ZillaParishad road in the village and started forming cementroad to a distance of one furlong from railway track up toculvert near the house of Paleru Edukondalu. On 16-11-2006, the 5[th] respondent dumped material such as stone,sand and cement and he brought workers to draw lines forformation of cement road. If he were allowed to form acement floor on the road, there will not be any possibilityto lay pipeline for supply of drinking water.

6. It is stated that the petitioner approached the 5[th]respondent with regard to dumping material. But he saidthat he was directed to form road only for one furlongthrough the respondents 1 to 4 and immediately thepetitioner contacted the respondents 1 to 4 who statedthat there is no such grant for formation of road. It isfurther stated that the 5[th] respondent had decided todamage the pipeline with a malafide intention and severalother factual details also had been narrated in Para 7 ofthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4, itis averred that the work formation of CC Road fromRailway track to Ramalayam in Vellacheruvu village ofSanthamagulur mandal with an estimate cost of Rs.10.00lakhs was sanctioned under ZP General Fund (SC) videProceedings No.P2/1635/2005, dated 20-4-2005 andentrusted to the Group Leader, Bhavani DWACRA Group,Vellacheruvu on nomination, but was not entrusted to the5[th] respondent as stated by the petitioner. It is needlessto say that the said party was impleaded as 6[th]respondent.

8. It is also further averred in Para 3 of the counteraffidavit that PWD Scheme was running smoothly and nonew PWS Scheme is proposed by RWS department. It is also informed by the RWS authorities that the CC road inprogress will not cause any damage to the existingpipeline at present and that if any further replacement isrequired along the above said road, there will not be anyproblem since sufficient width is available on either side ofthe CC Road.

9. It is also stated that the 5[th] respondent is no wayconcerned to the execution of the CC Road in progressand the same was entrusted to the Group leader, BhavaniDWACRA Group. Further, specific sand is taken that allnorms had been followed in execution of the work inquestion entrusted to the Group Leader, BhavaniDWACRA group, Vellalacheruvu and several other factualdetails also have been narrated in Paras 4, 5 and 6 of thecounter affidavit.

10. In the counter affidavit filed by 5[th] respondentseveral of the allegations made had been specificallydenied. It is stated that Cement Concrete Road work forRailway track to Ramalayam in Vallalacheruvu village wasentrusted to Bhavani DWACRA group of Vallalacheruvuvillage, under proceedings dated 21-8-2005, which hasbeen supervising the road formation work. Prior toentrustment of work, administrative sanction was obtainedvide proceedings No.P2/6542/2004 dated 30-04-2004.

Technical sanction was also obtained from the authoritiesconcerned. The road where CC work is going on, is ZillaParishad Road. Pursuant to work order, BhavaniDWACRA group commenced road laying work andcompleted it up to the length of 120 meters. Theremaining work of about 250 meters has come to a standstill in view of the interim status quo order passed by thisCourt. Specific stand is taken that the respondent is noway concerned with laying of CC road and several factsalso had been denied.

11. The other allegation that Sri A.V. Chowdhary cameforward to construct water tank in 12 cents of land at hisown investment also had been denied. The overallappreciation of the stand taken in the counter affidavit filedby R1 to R4 and also R5 is that the respondents are notgoing to cause any damage to the pipeline at present. However, certain submissions are made that whilecarrying out the work, it is not possible to carry on thework further, without causing some damage to the pipelinein question. It is made clear that especially in the light ofthe stand taken in the counter affidavit of R1 to R4, it ismade clear that while proceeding with the furtherexecution of the contract work in question, sufficient careto be taken to protect the pipeline and as far as possiblenot to cause any damage to the existing pipeline. The specific stand taken by R1 to R4 in this regard is alsohereby recorded and in the light of the statement made inthe counter affidavit filed by R1 to R4, at present nodamage is being caused to the pipeline in question andalso in the light of the observations referred to supra, nofurther positive directions need be issued.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with theabove observations. No order as to costs.

Dated 27[th] December 2006mrb

__________________

(P.S. NARAYANA, J)