Disposed

Petlu Narasimhulu v. The District Collector

Telangana HC9 Feb 2009WP/1833/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners appointed In-charge of Habitation Level Works Committee challenged allotment of four C.C. road works to a respondent firm. The Court directed the respondent authority to follow prescribed procedure when allotting such works within Gram Panchayat limits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to follow the prescribed procedure when allotting C.C. road works within Gram Panchayat limits.

Petlu Narasimhulu Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1833 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Petlu Narasimhulu S/o. Papanna

¶7

R/o. Adapalamalapalli, hamlet of Gopagudipalli,

¶8

Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶9

2 Rase Chinna Subbaiah S/o. Nadipanna R/o. Nagarajupalli, hamlet of Gopagudipalli, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶10

..... PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The District Collector Kadapa Dist.

¶13

Kadapa.

¶14

2 The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj, Zilla Parishad premises Railway Station Road, Kadapa.

¶15

3 The Deputy Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj

¶16

Lakkireddypalli Mandal, Kadapa Dist.

¶17

4 The Mandal Engineer Office of the Mandal Development Officer Ramapuram, Kadapa Dist.

¶18

5 The Panchayat Secretary Gopagudipalli Gram Panchayat Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa Dist.

¶19

6 Sri Anjaneya Rythu Mitra Group Rep. by its President, Gadigota Janardhana Reddy,

¶20

R/o. Boyareddypalli, Hamlet of Suddamalla, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa Dist.

¶21

.....RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to allot the works viz. a) Providing C.C. Road from Basaveswara Temple to Jandamanu in Gajulapeta; b) Providing C.C. Road from Sri Rama Temple to C. Venkata Ramana house in Nagarajupalle; c) Providing C.C. Road from Nagarajupalle Road to D. Reddaiah house in Gollapalle; and d) Providing C.C. Road from Sri Rama Temple to K. Basaiah House in Gopagudipalle, sanctioned by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.CPO/D1/97/IRD/08, dated 16-9-2008, in favour of the respondent No.6, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, Panchayat Raj and Rural Dept.

¶23

(Prog.IA) Dept., dated 18-02-2005 and also the Circular dated 3-12-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to allot the said works as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No.37, Panchayat Raj and Rural Dept. (Prog.IA) Dept., dated 18-02-2005 and also the Circular dated 3-12-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.B.VISWANATHA REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following :

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The petitioners claim that they have been appointed as the persons In-charge of Habitation Level Works Committee by the Gram Panchayat, Gopagudipalli, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. Their grievance is that though they have approached respondents 2 and 3 for entrustment of the works in terms of a circular, dated 03.12.2008 issued by the second respondent, no action has been taken and that attempts are being made to entrust the works to the sixth respondent.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.

¶30

The petitioners have only expressed an apprehension that certain works sanctioned within their Gram Panchayat limits are likely to be allotted to the sixth respondent. The question as to whether the works in question are covered by circular dated 03.12.2008 issued by the second respondent and whether they are liable to be entrusted to the petitioners, needs to be examined.

¶31

The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to follow the prescribed procedure, as and when works for providing C.C. road within the limits of the Gram Panchayat, are allotted. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶33

Dt.09.02.2009. Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ

Petlu Narasimhulu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Petlu Narasimhulu v. The District Collector

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

Jagarapu Chinna Venkata Ramana Vs The Sub Registrar, Anakapalle

Mohd Zafarullaha Khan Vs The District Collector

Pothuganti Papaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

T. Shekar Reddy, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator