Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nallimilli Venkata Subba Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 28 February, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.4441 of 2023
Between:-
Nallimilli Venkata Subba Reddy
..... Petitioner
and
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, and others
..... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Srinivas Ambati
Counsel for R.1, 2 & 4 to 7 : The G.P. for Panchayat Raj &
Rural Development Department
Counsel for R.8 & R.9 : Mr.N.Srihari, Standing Counsel
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 7 and Mr.N.Srihari, leaned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9.
2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 8 on the petitioner's representation dated 13.1.2023 with regard to laying of roads in unapproved layouts situated in survey Nos.500/1, 500/2 2 and 500/3 of Balabhadrapuram Village, Biccavole Mandal, East Godavari District.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the roads in the unapproved layouts situated in the survey numbers referred to above, have been laid by using the funds granted to the 9th respondent-Gram Panchayat under the Fifteenth Finance Commission and the same is illegal, irregular and without any authority of law. He further submits that laying of roads in unapproved layouts was taken-up owing to political reasons and the official respondents are bent upon to proceed with execution of the road works, though laying of roads in unapproved layouts with the Gram Panchayat funds is not legal. Learned counsel, however, states that ventilating the grievances, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 13.1.2023 to the 2nd respondent, but so far no action has been taken and in those circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions.
4. On a consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the relief sought for in the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that 3 despite making a detailed representation mentioning the alleged irregularities with regard to laying of roads in unapproved layouts, no action is taken so far. In such circumstances, this Court, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, deems it expedient to direct the 2nd respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 13.1.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners, an opportunity shall also be afforded to the 9th respondent.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA February 28, 2023 vasu