Local Governments Chamber Vs Union of India

¶1

[3483]

¶2

APHC010222862025

¶3

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

¶4

WP(PIL) NO: 89/2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

1.^{LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CHAMBER, REGD. NO.254 OF 2018, REPRESENTED} BY ITS PRESIDENT, MAMIDI APPALANAIDU, S/O. APPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D.NO. C-15, BOGIVARI STREET, SARIKA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM. 535004. MOBILE NO. 9849126827, EMAIL ID MAMIDIAPPALANAIDU QMAIL.COM, AADHAR NUMBER - 998722350915, PAN CARD NO. BMMPM4311D, BANK A/C NO. 11599426219 OF SBI BANK, BRANCH - SAINIK SCHOOL KORUKONDA, VIZIANAGARAM, IFSC - SBIN0002791.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1.^UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2.^{THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL} SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

3.^THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

4.^{THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.}

¶13

5.^{MR ADITI VIJAYALAKSHMI GAJAPATHI RAJU PUUSAPATI, D/O PUUSAPATI} ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU, OCC. MLA OF VIZIANAGARAM CONSTITUENCY, VIZIANAGARAM MADAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶14

6.^{MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MPDO, VIZIANAGARAM MADAL,} VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

may be pleased to pass an order, direction or a Writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in identifying the vendors for undertaking works under MGNREGS Schemes in

¶17

1

¶18

quite contrary to i) the circulars issued by the respondent No. 3 vide circular vide Circular Nos. 1926/EGS/DEE (1) on Mc/2024 dated 25.07.2024 and also Circular No 1309/EGS/DEE(T) / Migration to NREGA Soft/2021, dated 01/03/2022, and contrary to ii) Chapter 7 of Annual Master Circular 2024-25 issued by the respondent No.1 iii)Without considering the priorities opted by the villagers in Grama Sabhas iv)Without obtaining approvals from the Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of MGNREGS Act, 2005 and consequently direct the respondents to identify all the works and the vendors according the circulars issued by the respondent No.3 and Annual Master Circular issued by the respondent No.1 to undertake works in accordance with the priorities expressed by the respective Grama Sabhas and Gram Panchayaths and pass such

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioners vide Complaint No.85914/2025, dt.07/01/2025 pending disposal of the main Public Interest Litigation and pass such

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶25

2.Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra

¶26

3.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶27

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶28

DATE: 02.07.2025.

¶29

2

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)

¶32

The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed highlighting the action of respondents in identifying the vendors for undertaking works under MGNREGS Schemes contrary to the circulars issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 25.07.2024 & 01.03.2022, chapter 7 of Annual Master circular 2024-25 issued by the 1^st respondent, without considering the priorities opted by the villagers in Grama Sabhas and without obtaining approvals from the Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads.

¶33

Heard Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Samba Siva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit would contend that, based on the recommendation letter issued by the Hon'ble MLA of Vizianagaram constituency (5^th respondent) dated 01.10.2024, the 4^th respondent granted administrative sanction, specifying works to be undertaken under MGNREGS for various villages within Vizianagaram Mandal, which is in clear violation of Schedule 1, Para 4(2) of MGNREGS Act, 2005, which explicitly states that the prioritization of works should be based on the needs expressed by the community. Due to these politically motivated recommendations the projects that had been duly prioritized by the Gram Panchayat were sidelined, violating Section 16(1) of the MGNREGS Act, 2005 which mandates that at least 50 % of the works

¶35

3

¶36

should be executed by the Gram Panchayat, ensuring that local governance structures retain control over rural development initiatives. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶37

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General on counter submitted that, Gram Sabha resolution was obtained on 23.08.2024 for undertaking works under MGNREGS in various villages of Vizianagaram District and after completion of work estimates for 157 works, the program officer forwarded to the District collector, who is District Coordinator for administrative sanction. The District Collector had issued administrative sanction dated 01.10.2024, based on the resolution of ZPP, Vizianagaram dated 24.09.2024 and received proposals from Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Vizianagaram. He further submitted that, the date of order issued by the District Collector and the date of letter submitted by the Hon'ble MLA is purely coincidental (i.e., 01.10.2024).

¶38

He further submitted that, as on date, 83 works were completed out of 157 works and 3 were in progress. Out of 889 works which were identified in Gram Sabha, the District Collector issued administrative sanction in Phase-I for 157 works estimating to a cost of Rs.10.15 crores, only after the said proposals were ratified by MPP and by ZPP. In phase-II, the District Collector issued administrative sanction for another 49 works for estimated cost of Rs.5.20 crores, as such, more than 50% of the works have been executed through Gram Panchayats. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is

¶39

4

¶40

not true in that regard. Further, as per circular dated 11.05.2025, the Mandal Program Officer shall obtain the approval of the Mandal Parishad within 15 days and submit it to the District collector, otherwise, the plan shall be deemed to have been approved and there is no possibility for the Mandal Parishad to reject the plan as per rules.

¶41

He further contended that, the authorities have followed the procedure as per the Act, 2005, circulars and the Gram Sabha resolution which was ratified by ZPP. The entire process is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and followed by the State Government. Hence, the administrative sanction is granted based on the Grama Sabha resolution but not on the letter addressed by Hon'ble MLA as alleged by the petitioner. As such prayed to dismiss the Public Interest Litigation ( PIL).

¶42

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned

¶43

counsel.

¶44

6. Granting administrative sanction at the instance of an MLA that too contrary to M GNREGS Schemes, the circulars issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 25.07.2024 & 01.03.2022, chapter 7 of Annual Master circular 2024-25 issued by the 1^st respondent, without considering the priorities opted by the villagers in Grama Sabhas and without obtaining approvals from the Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads is the key point that was raised in this petition.

¶45

5

¶46

8 . Schedule 1, Para 4(2) of the MGNREGS Act, 2005 is relevant

¶47

and reads as follows :

¶48

“The shelf of projects for each Gram Panchayat will be recommended by the Gram Sabha and approved by the Gram Panchayat and such works shall be taken up in the order of priority as determined by the Gram Sabha.”

¶49

9. A perusal of the proceedings of the District Collector dated 01.10.2024 filed along with counter affidavit would reveal that, proposals are received to accord the sanctions for new works by duly following the MGNREGS Act Guidelines and identify the works through Gram Sabhas and accordingly administrative sanction is accorded. Therefore, the authorities have followed the guidelines and the norms wherein Gram Sabha resolution was also passed, which got ratified by ZPP and ultimately, the District Collector has issued the administrative sanction dated 01.10.2024. Further, unexpectedly, the MLA has also addressed a letter on 01.10.2024 for sanction of works, but by that time, the sanction order was already issued by the District Collector dated 01.10.2024, therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the works were initiated at the instance of MLA’s recommendation letter. In view of the same, the petitioner has not made any valid point and there remains nothing for adjudication and the Public Interest Litigation is liable to the closed.

¶50

6

¶51

Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation ( PIL) is closed . No costs.

¶52

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

¶55

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J