Dismissed

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2024WP/12110/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging the authorities' decision to construct village secretariat buildings in a different village than the one named in the petition. The Court held that such administrative decisions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless they are malafide or arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission without costs.

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12110 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o G.Pedda Malakondaiah,^agedabout60 years, R/o. Marramreddipalli, Seetharamapuram Mandal,^SPSR Nellore District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development), Secretariat^Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Tadepalli Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶14

The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore.

¶15

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Seetharamapuram^Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Seetharamapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶17

The Superintending Engineer, P.R Circle, Nellore.

¶18

' j

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No. 4.to 7 in constructing the buildings of Village Secretriat, Pesticides Godown, Veternity Hospital of Maramreddypalli Gram Panchayat at Gandhamvaripalli Village instead of Maramreddypalli Village of Seetharamapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to Construct the buildings of Village Secretriat Pesticides Godown Veternity Hospital of Maramreddypalli Gram Panchayat at Maramreddypalli Village of Seetharamapuran Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent authorities to stop the construction of buildings of Village Secretriat, Pesticides Godown, Veternity Hospital of Maramreddypalli Gram Panchayat at Gandhamvaripalli Village of Seetharamapuran Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.VENKATA REDDY(SC)

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 12110 of 2020

¶29

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o G. Pedda Malakondaiah, aged about 60 years, R/o Marramreddipalli, Seetharamapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶30

... Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and six others.

¶33

... Respondents

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner ; Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy : Government Pleader for Counsel for respondents Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; and Sri G. Venkta Reddy, learned standing counsel

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in constructing the buildings^ofVillage Secretariat, Pesticides Godown, Veternity Hospital of Maramreddypalli Gram Panchayat at Gandhamvaripalli^village

¶37

Page 2 of 6

¶38

SRSJ W.P.No.12110 of 2020

¶39

instead of Maramreddypalli village of Seetharamapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶40

Heard Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for respondent^Nos.l to 4 and 7 and Smt. Hari Priya, learned counsel representing Sri G. Venkta Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially District Collector issued proceedings to construct Village Secretariat, Pesticides Godown, Veternity Hospital of Maramreddypalli Gram Panchayat, in Maramreddypalli village. However, the authorities, without adhering to the procedure,^are intending to construct new sanctioned buildings at Gandhamvaripalli village instead of Maramreddypalli village.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned ^counsel for respondent No.5, per contra, would submit that Tahsildar, Seetharamapuram has enquired and identified suitable land in Gandhamvaripalli village, which is nearer to

¶43

Page 3 of 6

¶44

SRS, J W.P.No.12110 of 2020

¶45

main road and it is convenient to the general public. They submit that Gandhamvaripalli village is part of Maramreddypalli Gram Panchayat and it is centrally located village to both, Gram Panchayats as well as to the habitations. The existing^Gram Panchayat building is not sufficient to locate other government offices.

¶46

This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally, will not sit as appellate authority over the decision of the authorities in identifying suitable place for construction or to locate Village Secretariat

¶47

etc.. which is essentially an administrative matter. The authorities will identify the land by considering the suitability, location, convenience of the public etc. Unless, the decision of the authorities is held to be malafide or suffers from arbitrary action, normally the Court will not interfere with such a decision. The High Court may not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against^theotherfor location of the Village Secretariat.

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

SRS, J W.P.No.12110 of 2020

¶50

The Hon-ble Apex Court, in the decision reported i n J.R. Raghupathy and Others V. State of A.P. and Othersh while considering the issue with regard to location of Mandal Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that the issue with regard to location of Mandal Headquarters was admittedly governmental function and therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that the guidelines issued by the State Government had no statutory force and they were merely in the nature of executive i instructions for the guidance of the Collectors. The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that High Court has no jurisdiction to sit i in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate Mandal Headquarters at a particular place. Decision to locate such headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters.

¶51

' 1988 (4) see 364

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

SRSJ W.P.No.12110 of 2020

¶54

In the case at hand, the Executive authority has taken^a decision to construct Village Secretariat in Gandhamvaripalli village.

¶55

In the light of the precedential law and discussion^made supra, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall stand dismissed.

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR /section officer

¶60

To,

¶61

One CC to SRI V Roopesh Kumar Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CCs to Gp For Panchayat Raj Rural Dev .High^{CourtOfAndhra} Pradesh. [OUT]

¶63

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.12110of 2020

o
c ;
v>
X;

DISMISSING THE W.P,

WITHOUT COSTS

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Krishna Dist and Anr. Vs Prl Secy, M a and U D Dept., Hyd and 5 Others

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Rapeti Nookaraju, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Challa Venkata Phani Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.S.A. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Ap

A.Narsulal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh