APHC010597032024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION BETWEEN: Chandragiri Veera Reddy The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 31142/2024 Chandragiri Veera Reddy ...Petitioner AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in conducting the enquiry for payment of Rs.15,74,283/- on the basis of the representation of the 7th respondent while the issue pending before the Division Bench of this Court, vide W.A. No.935 of 2024, amounts to arbitrary. Hence, prayed not to conduct the enquiry in respect of subject matter, which is sub-judice in W.A. No.935 of 2024 relating to the payment of bill for an amount of Rs.15,74,283/-. 2. The fact of the case is that the authorities have executed the MGNREGS works in the village of Chinakothapalli Gram Panchayat, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District i.e. laying of the Cement Road, drainage system etc. Total four wards covered by 11 FTOs were executed. Out of which, 3 FTOs were executed by the 7th Respondent and the petitioner executed 8 FTOs. The bill amount for the 3 works has been already paid to the 7th respondent before filing the writ petition. At the same time, the respondents also paid the bill amount to the petitioner for 6 FTOs and the authorities have to pay an amount of Rs.5,51,703/- for 3 the balance 2 FTOs. When the petitioner approached for release of the bills amount for the balance 2 FTOs, the authorities have stated that the 7th respondent herein filed W.P. No.29747 of 2021 before this High Court for release of bill amount covered by 11 FTOs, even though he executed the works for 3 FTOs only and the bill amount for the 3 FTOs were already released. The said Writ Petition was allowed at the admission stage. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat filed review petition, vide I.A. No.2 of 2022 for reviewing the orders in W.P. No.29747 of 2021 and the same is pending. After passing the orders in review petition, the grievance of the petitioner will be resolved. 3. Since, the respondent authorities did not file any Writ Appeal questioning the orders of the learned single judge in directing the authorities to release the bill amount to the Respondent No.7, even the respondent No.7 did not execute the work, therefore, the petitioner herein filed Writ Appeal No.935 of 2024 and Division Bench of this Court ordered notice to the Respondents and the same is pending before this Court for adjudication. 4. Be that as it may, the 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent to conduct enquiry, accordingly, the 5th respondent 4 issued notice stating that the enquiry will be conducted on 04.12.2024 and also directed 6th respondent to produce enquiry report before him. The 6th respondent conducted enquiry by examining several officials. 5. The 7th respondent made representation to the 2nd respondent requesting to conduct enquiry for the payment of said amount. Then the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 09.12.2024 directed the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry. Then, the 3rd respondent on 12.12.2024 issued notice that the enquiry will be conducted on 18.12.2024. The petitioner has attended the enquiry and also stated before the 3rd respondent that who utilized his services filed review petition in W.P. No.29747 of 2021, since the Writ Petition was allowed without giving any opportunity to the authorities. The petitioner also filed W.A. No.935 of 2024 against the order in W.P. No.29747 of 2021. Having the matter is ceased by the High Court, the 3rd respondent has no authority to conduct any enquiry till disposal of W.A. No.935 of 2024, is the contention raised in the Writ Petition. 6. The respondents are proceeding to conduct enquiry with a view to do undue favour to the 7th respondent, hence, the Writ 5 Petition is filed to direct the respondents not to conduct enquiry till disposal of the W.A. No.935 of 2024 and W.P. No.29747 of 2021. 7. On perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition, already an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was participated in the enquiry. And as seen from the averments of the Writ Affidavit, it is purely internal dispute between the petitioner and the 7th respondent. Hence, the dispute between the parties requires adjudication for disputed question of facts. Where, the parties required to lead evidence both oral and documentary, which can be determined by a domestic forum chosen by the parties. This Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition. 8. In order to payment of amount either to the petitioner or to the 7th respondent invariably an enquiry is required. Whether the 7th respondent is executed the work or not, or he is entitled for the amount, an enquiry is required. Merely, pending of the Writ Appeal before this Court is not a ground to direct the respondents not to conduct enquiry. Unless a specific direction from this Court in the Writ Appeal, not to proceed with the enquiry. 6 9. No valid and legal grounds were raised in order to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and there is no such arbitrariness on perusal of the entire affidavit. It is only enquiry was directed to resolve the dispute. Hence, it is not a fit case to order and it is devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.01.2025 Harin 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 96 W.P.No. 31142 OF 2024 Date: 29-01-2025 Harin