Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sagila Nasarareddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.17771 of 2020
Sagila Nasarareddy, S/o Govinda Reddy, aged
about 40 years, Occ: Former Sarpanch, R/o
J.M. Puram, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur,
Guntur District, A.P.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, PR & RD Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat
Buildings, Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. and six
others.
(Respondent Nos.6 and 7 were
impleaded as per orders, dated 08.08.2022 in
I.A.No.1 of 2022.)
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy
Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj; G. Venkat
Reddy, standing counsel;
M. Manohar Reddy,
standing counsel and Sri
G. Elisha, learned counsel
:: ORDER ::
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Page 2 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 action of the respondents in not releasing the bills due to the petitioner for execution of the works in J.M. Puram Village, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur District in pursuance of the proceedings No.Agt.No.276/2018-19 dated 05.06.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narsaraopet, as arbitrary, illegal and un- constitutional and in violation of Art. 14, 19 and in violation of the agreements dated 05.06.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the bills immediately to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the works entrusted to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders ..."
2. The averments, germane to decide the writ petition are:
a) Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Jangamaeswarapuram Village, Gurajala Mandal, Guntur District in the local body elections held in the 2013. On the representation made by villagers, the then Government granted civil works for laying C.C. roads in the village. The Executive Engineer PRI Division, Narsaraopet, by proceedings dated 05.06.2018, while approving the agreement entered into between the petitioner, as Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat and Executive Engineer, P.R.I. Division, Narasaraopet, has fixed time period for completion of the works. Petitioner started execution of the works, as per the specifications, after Page 3 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 the site was handed over. Petitioner completed six works, which were entrusted to him in Jangamaeswarapuram Village within time stipulated in the proceedings dated 05.06.2018.
Assistant Engineer, Gurajala inspected the sites and prepared measurement book.
b) Subsequently, Jangamaeswarapuram Gram Panchayat merged with Gurajala Gram Panchayat and formed as Gurajala Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, petitioner made representation to Executive Engineer and M.P.D.O. requesting the payment of due bills. However, petitioner's bills were not released. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that petitioner did not execute any work under the agreement. Petitioner neither made any representation to respondent No.3 for payment of bills nor produced any document. Petitioner, being the Sarpanch of Gurajala Gram Panchayat entered into an agreement with Executive Engineer, on 05.06.2018 for work Nos.1 to 6 and with regard to work No.7, the then Special Officer of Jangamaheswarapuram Grama Panchayat entered into an agreement with the Deputy Executive Engineer, P.R.I. Sub- Page 4 of 16
SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 Division, Gurazala on 13.08.2018. By the time of commencement of the works, the Special Officer was appointed in the place of Sarpanch w.e.f 02.08.2018. All the works were got executed by the then Special Officer, Gram Panchayat. Work Nos.1 to 7 were grounded on 18.08.2018, 18.08.2018, 25.09.2018, 25.09.2018, 02.10.2018 and 01.11.2018 respectively. The petitioner, with malafide intention, taking advantage of the agreement, without executing any work, filed the writ petition. In fact, as per the records, after completion of petitioner's tenure, all the works were commenced. The Special Officer got work Nos.1 to 3 executed through S. Bala Kota Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy and work Nos.4 to 7 through Gadipudi Pedda Chinnaiah. Hence, the bill amounts is payable to S. Bala Kota Reddy and Gadipudi Pedda Chinnaih. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Separate counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.4. It was contended, inter alia, that petitioner did not execute any work. The 4th respondent deponent joined as MPDO on 10.07.2019 and was also appointed as a Special Officer to the Janga Maheswarapuram Gram Panchayat. By Page 5 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 the time respondent No.4 joined, all the works were executed. The Executive Engineer informed respondent No.4 that petitioner, the then Sarpanch, entered into an agreement with Executive Engineer, for work Nos.1 to 6 and the then Special Officer of the Gram Panchayat entered into an agreement insofar as work No.7 is concerned. By the time of commencement of works, the petitioner's tenure as Sarpanch was completed on 01.08.2018. On the request made by respondent No.4, Executive Engineer supplied all the 'M' books recorded by Assistant Executive Engineer. Petitioner's brother S. Bala Koti Reddy, made representation dated 19.10.2019 for release of bills in respect of work Nos.4 to 6. In response, respondent No.4 addressed letters dated 19.10.2019 and 30.06.2021 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, requesting details of the persons/agencies, who actually executed the said works. The then Assistant Executive Engineer addressed a letter dated 01.07.2021 stating that work Nos.4 to 6 were executed by petitioner's brother by name S. Bala Koti Reddy and work Nos.1 to 3 and 7 were executed by Gadipudi Pedda Chinnayya. Petitioner neither made representation nor furnished details of the works alleged to have been executed by him. The petitioner, Page 6 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 taking advantage of the agreements, filed the present writ petition. As per the records, the works commenced only after the petitioner's tenure. Eventually, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Respondent No.5 filed separate counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that the deponent received information from the Panchayat Secretary qua the execution of works. As per the information of the Panchayat Secretary, neither 'M' books nor agreements relating to the works or orders were handed over to the then Panchayat Secretary by the then Assistant Engineer or Deputy Engineer of Panchayat Raj Department. The term of the then Sarpanch was ended on 01.08.2018. Later MPDO, Gurazala Mandal was appointed as Special Officer for Jangamaheswarapuram Gram Panchayat. The Executive Engineer issued cheque for Rs.9,72,885/- and the same was credited to the account of MGNREGS, Gram Panchayat, Janagamaswarapuram on 30.09.2019, in SBI Main Branch, Gurazala. Subsequently, Gurazala and Jangamaheswarapuram Gram Panchayats were merged as Nagara Panchayat, Gurazala. The Then Panchayat Secretary, JM Puram did not handover orders or agreements relating to Page 7 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 the works done in the village under MGNREGS and MPLADS funds to the Commissioner, Nagara Panchayat.
6. Respondent Nos.6 and 7, who were impleaded as per order dated 08.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022, filed a counter affidavit. While reiterating with regard to grant of works and the agreement dated 05.06.2018, entered into by the petitioner in respect of works 1 to 6, they contended that the tenure of Sarpanch was completed on 01.08.2018 and immediately MPDO was appointed as Special Officer of the Gram Panchayat. After taking charge, respondent No.4/Special Officer got the works executed through respondent Nos.6 and 7. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Gurazala inspected the works executed by respondent Ns.6 and 7 and recorded the same in 'M' books. Thus, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are entitled to the amounts kept pending with the Special Officer. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was contended inter alia, that 'M' books filed by respondent No.4 would disclose that the works were executed by petitioner on 17.08.2018 and thereafter different dates were Page 8 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 mentioned in the 'M' books. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 did not execute any works. Respondent No.4, as Special Officer entered into agreement with Gadipudi Chinnaiah in respect of work No.7 and no agreement was entered into by the Official respondents with respondent Nos.6 and 7 in respect of execution of works.
8. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Venkata Narayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Smt. Hari Priya, learned counsel representing Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri Elisha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and reply affidavit.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in their respective counter affidavits. Page 9 of 16
SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020
11. The points for consideration are :
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for?
2. Whether a Writ of Mandamus would be issued when there exist serious disputed questions of facts?
12. As seen from the pleadings and material on record, there is no dispute that the District Collector sanctioned seven works under MPLAD funds with matching of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) funds in 70:30 ration in Jangamahswarapuram Gram Panchayat, Gurazala Mandal. The details of works are extracted hereunder:
S.No. Name of the work Est. Cost (Rs. in lakhs) MGNREGS MPLADS Total Portion 70% Portion 30% 1 Providing CC road from 9.10 3.90 13.00 Karumula Sidha Reddy (House) to Yeumula Sowbhagyamma (House) in Jangameswarapuram (GP) of Gurazala (M) 2 Providing CC road from 8.05 3.45 11.50 Bodipullaiah Mill to Punyala Parusuramireddy (House) in Jangameswarapuram (GP) of Gurazala (M) 3 Providing CC road from 9.10 3.90 13.00 Sagila Venkata Reddy (House) to Narapareddy Venkata Reddy (House) in Jangameswarapuram (GP) of Gurazala (M) 4 Providing CC road from 4.20 1.80 6.00 Musuku Veeraiah (House) to Yarram Satyanayrana Reddy Page 10 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 (House) in Jangameswara Puram (House) of Jangameswara Puram (GP) of Gurazala (M).
5 Providing CC road from 4.06 1.74 5.80 Tondapu Hanumantha Rao (House) to Yenumula Anji Reddy (House) in Jangameswarapuram (house) of Jangameswara Puram (GP) of Gurazala (M).
6 Providing CC road from 9.10 3.90 13.00 Mittamida Venkata Reddy shop to Sagila Venkata Reddy (House) in Jangameswara Puram (House) of Jangameswara Puram (GP) of Gurazala (M).
7 Providing CC road and side 1.40 0.60 2.00 drain from Yenumula Krishna Reddy (House) to Yenumala Venkata Reddy (House) in Jangameswara PUram (House) of Jangameswara puram (GP) of Gurazala (M)
13. There is also no dispute that petitioner being the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, entered into agreement on 05.06.2018 in respect of work Nos.1 to 6 with Executive Engineer.
14. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner executed works in respect of work Nos.1 to 6 and hence, he is entitled for the bills. However, according to respondent Nos.3 and 4, the then Special Officer got work Nos.1 to 3 executed through petitioner's brother, S. Bala Kota Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy and work Nos.4 to 7 through Gadipudi Pedda Page 11 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 Chinnaiah i.e. respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein and hence, they are entitled to the bill amount.
15. The petitioner placed strong reliance on the entry dated 13.07.2018 made in 'M' book and contended that the date mentioned i.e. 13.07.2018 would manifest that petitioner commenced the work before expiry of his tenure and completed the works. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the learned Deputy Executive Engineer, who produced original 'M' book before the Court assisted the court regarding the entry relied upon by the petitioner, submitted that after entering into the agreement 'M' book was issued by Divisional Accounts Officer to S. Koteswara Rao, Assistant Executive Engineer, on 13.07.2018. Learned Deputy Executive Engineer also submitted that another 'M' book was issued on 26.04.2017 and the dates mentioned i.e. 26.04.2017 and 13.07.2018 in 'M' book only indicate factum of issuance of 'M' books to the concerned officer but not commencement of work as pleaded.
16. As seen from the copies of different 'M' books filed along with the counter affidavit in one of 'M' books the date was mentioned as 26-4-2017. The agreement entered into by the Page 12 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 petitioner is much later. Thus, the date mentioned in 'M' book relied upon by the petitioner is to be treated as issuance of "M" books the concerned, but not the commencement of work. The contention of the learned counsel that unless the work was commenced the authority would not have issued of "M" books, this court is not persuaded with the contention in view of the observation made supra.
17. According to learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat, the material, in respect of work No.1, was dumped on 13.08.2018 and the same was verified by Deputy Executive Engineer on 18.08.2018. Thereafter the work was completed.
18. In view of the rival contentions with regard to the dates, learned Single Judge of this Court requested, learned Junior Civil Judge to submit report with regard to the execution of work. Accordingly, learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala conducted an enquiry with the local people and submitted report. The report of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge reveals that work Nos.1 and 2 were executed by respondent No.6 and work Nos.3 to 5 were executed by Page 13 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 respondent No.7 and petitioner, elder brother of respondent No.6 used to accompany respondent No.6.
19. Thus, as can be seen from the discussion supra, there is a serious dispute as to execution of the work by the petitioner. Though the agreement was entered into by the petitioner in respect of work Nos.1 to 6, his tenure as Sarpanch was completed by 01.08.2018 and thereafter Special Officer was appointed w.e.f. 02.08.2018. The entries in 'M' books filed along with the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 would disclose that work Nos.1 to 7 were commenced on 17.08.2018, 17.08.2018, 24.09.2018, 26.10.2018, 31.10.2018, 02.10.2018 and 31.10.2018 respectively and they were completed on 24.12.2018, 24.12.2018, 18.02.2018, 18.02.2019, 13.03.2019, 13.03.2019 and 13.03.2019 respectively. The petitioner being Sarpanch at the relevant point of time, entered into agreement. The agreement, per se, is not conclusive proof to show that petitioner executed the works. The petitioner should further prove execution of work during his tenure. It is not the case of the petitioner that after expiry of his tenure Page 14 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 he completed the works. In fact, it being a disputed question of fact, it requires evidence.
20. The question as to whether petitioner or respondent Nos.6 and 7 executed works, is a disputed question of fact. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally will not adjudicate disputed question of facts.
21. In Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another1, it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"22. ...a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been "considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1...."
22. In Dharam Dutt v. Union of India2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such highly disputed questions of 1 AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 4 SCC 317 2 AIR 2004 SC 1295 : (2004) 1 SCC 712 Page 15 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 fact which cannot be determined except on evidence are not fit to be taken up for-adjudication in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
23. In view of the above discussion, since there is a serious dispute regarding as to who executed the works, which requires evidence to be let in, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Any observations made in the order will not come in the way of the petitioner in establishing his claim before the competent civil court. The observations made will also not bind the Civil Court. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 11.01.2024 ikn Page 16 of 16 SRSJ WP No.17771 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.17771 of 2020 Date : 11.01.2024 ikn