Disposed

S. Laxmi Kantha Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jan 2020WP/996/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order establishing a village secretariat at N.Konthalapadu instead of Guttapadu, violating rules requiring the siting of secretariats in villages with larger populations when combining units under 2000. The bench directed the 2nd respondent to consider a specific letter and pass necessary orders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the letter Rc.No.1048/Pam.A8/2019 dated 06.11.2019 and pass necessary orders within three weeks.

S. Laxmi Kantha Reddy, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.996 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in establishing the village secretariat at N.Konthalapadu instead of Guttapadu Village, Orvkal Mandal, Krishna District, in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (MDL-I) Department, dated 19.07.2019 is highly illegal and unjust and for a consequential direction.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing on behalf of respondents.

¶5

(a) The petitioners case briefly is that of late the Government have proposed to establish village secretariats for smooth functioning of the villages and strengthen the gram panchayats and provide service for every village having 2000 population in the State. In terms thereof, rules have been framed and G.Os. have been issued. G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (MDL-I) Department, dated 19.07.2019, is a relevant one in that regard. The relevant portion of the said G.O., which is germane for consideration of this Court is as follows:

¶6

“11. Area of operation of functional assistants

¶7

i. Population unit of about 2000 persons is taken as the base, for provision of services by one team of functional assistants.

¶8

¶9

ii. Rural areas (other than Agency areas)

¶10

a. If a Gram panchayat (GP) population is more than 2,000 and less than 4000, the entire GP is considered as one unit and one team of functional assistants will be provided.

¶11

b. In the case of smaller GPs having less than 2000 population, one team of functional assistants will provide services for one or more Gram panchayats, to cater to the needs of population of about 2000, for administrative convenience.

¶12

c. In larger Gram Panchayats, additional teams of functional assistants will be provided in proportion to the population.

¶13

d. Wherever additional teams of functional assistants are proposed in larger Gram Panchayats, the area of operation of additional teams as far as possible will be co-terminus with revenue villages, to enable effective provision of services by Revenue and Survey departments.”

¶14

(b) The further case of the petitioners is that in terms of Clause 11 of the aforesaid G.O., the villages i.e., Guttapadu and N.Konthalapadu are combined because the individual population of each village is less than 2000. The population of Guttapadu is 1246, whereas the population of N.Konthalapadu is 1071. Therefore, the village secretariat for these two combined villages ought to have been established in Guttapadu Village. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of showing Guttapadu as the seat of village secretariat, by mistake N.Konthalapadu is shown. Realising this mistake, the 3^rd respondent addressed a letter to 2^nd respondent in Rc.No.1048/Pam.A8/2019, dated 06.11.2019, wherein he mentioned about the requirement for change of the village secretariat from

¶15

¶16

N.Konthalapadu to Guttapadu. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer of Kurnool, also addressed a letter to 4^th respondent in Rc.No.___/2019, dated 25.07.2019, stating that Guttapadu population is higher than N.Konthalapadu and hence, the same may be considered and Guttapadu may be shown as place of village secretariat instead of N.Konthalapadu. The 1^st petitioner also submitted a representation dated 30.11.2019 during the prajadarbar to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, however, no action has been taken so far. Learned counsel for petitioners prays that a direction be issued to the 2^nd respondent to rectify the above mistake.

¶17

In view of the above submission, this writ petition is disposed

¶18

of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the letter Rc.No.1048/Pam.A8/2019, dated 06.11.2019 of the 3^rd respondent and pass necessary orders as per Rules within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for

¶20

consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶21

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶22

22.01.2020

¶23

Note: issue C.C. by 23.01.2020. B/o.SS

S. Laxmi Kantha Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Laxmi Kantha Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nenavath Laxmi Naik Vs the State of Ap

Th Rajamma Vs the State of Ap

Globex Atluri Foods(p) Ltd. Vs the State

M.Baba Fakruddin Vs the State of Ap

Elizabeth Self Help Group Vs the State of Ap

B.Rajan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh