High Court for State of TelanganaWP/23064/2015disposed of no costs

Kanaparthi Sundar Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2015-11-24C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy4 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23064 OF 2015 DATED:24-11-2015 Between:

Kanaparthi Sundar Rao ... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Hyderabad and others ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. G. Elisha COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 and 3: A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj (AP) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 : A.G.P. for Revenue (AP) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 : Mr. Ravi Cheemalapati COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 : Mr. P.V.A. Padmanabham

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in deleting the name of respondent No.5 on the building of Bhattiprolu Gram Panchayat Office, as illegal and arbitrary.

This Court has elaborately heard the learned counsel for all the parties. In deference to the views expressed by this Court during the hearing on 12.11.2015, Mr. P.V.A. Padmanabham, learned counsel for respondent No.5, obtained instructions from his client and reported to the Court on 17.11.2015 that as naming of the Gram

Panchayat building after his client has created controversies, he is not interested in continuing his name and that he will approach respondent No.4 with a request to reconsider the resolution to avoid unnecessary controversies. The learned counsel also stated that his client will file an affidavit to this effect. Considering this representation, the case was adjourned to today. As assured by his counsel, respondent No.5 has filed an additional affidavit along with W.P.M.P. No.49175 of 2015 for placing the same on record, wherein it is stated that as naming of the Gram Panchayat Office building after him is creating controversy, he has made a representation on 20.11.2015 requesting respondent No.4 to take steps to withdraw its decision taken vide Resolution No.39, dt.31.12.2013. He has also enclosed a copy of the said representation made to the Secretary of respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat.

In the light of the above subsequent events, and as respondent No.5 has himself volunteered to remove his name, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to place the request of respondent No.5 before the Executive Committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and they shall ensure that a Resolution is passed as per the request of respondent No.5 to delete his name on the Gram Panchayat Office building and the same is intimated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.29827 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24-11-2015 bnr