APHC010519682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26730/2025 Between: 1. PRAGADA NAGESWARA RAO @ JUNIOR NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-145C, DUPPITHURU VILLAGE, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT). 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT). 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENIGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. DUPPITHURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP BY PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, DUPPITHURU PANCHAYATH, ATCHUTHAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.(ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT). 7. DESAMSETTI SHANKARARAO, S/O.RAJABABU, AGED ABOUT 46 YRS, OCC SARPANCH, DUPPITHURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ATCHUTHAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT - 531011 p. 2 8. PRAGADA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC CHAIRMAN, STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, R/O DUPPITHURU VILLAGE, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.28.10.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 6 in considering the public grievance representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2025 to take action against individuals who are trying to lay road on already existing cement road in collusion with 6th respondent without there being any estimations and valid permissions from the concerned authorities and further by misusing the panchayat funds with an intention to do favor to the private layout owner and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and from Violation of the provisions contained in Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and also in violation of MGNREGS rules and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the public grievance representation of the petitioner dtd 15.09.2025 in accordance with law IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed that this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents 4 to 7 not to lay any road on the existing concrete road in Duppithuru village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District by misuing the funds of Duppithuru Grama Panchayat dent in the interest of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to Implead himself as respondent No.8 in the Writ Petition No.26730 of 2025, as well as in the interlocutory application No.1 of 2025, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 p. 3 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be please to Vacate the interim order dt.25-09-2025 in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.26730 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri A.Sai Ram, learned counsel representing Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 5, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 6th respondent and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the inaction of respondents 2 to 6 in considering the representation dated 15.09.2025 (Ex.P1) made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made a representation dated 15.09.2025 (Ex.P1), to initiate action against the individuals who are attempting to lay a road over an existing cement road. In the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner is a native of Duppithuru Village of Anakapalli District. The petitioner’s mother had earlier served as Sarpanch of the village. Duppithuru Village was identified and registered in the MGNREGS Scheme. A concrete road was laid in the village using the funds p. 4 under the MGNREG Scheme. The petitioner’s mother’s tenure was completed, and, thereafter, the 7th respondent was elected as a Sarpanch to the Gram Panchayat. The 7th respondent proposed to lay a new road on the existing concrete road in collusion with the third parties for their benefit. The 7th respondent brought the machinery on 14.09.2025 and attempted to lay a road from the house of Aggala Abbadham to Badhi Ayyanna's house, and the petitioner made a representation dated 15.09.2025 (Ex.P1). 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 6th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the villagers made a representation dated 15.06.2025 to lay a CC road, as the existing road was damaged from Dudi Apparao's house to Setti Raju Babu's house. Considering the request of the villagers, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution No.7 dated 09.07.2025 to lay the CC road to an extent of 80 meters with a width of 14 feet. As there are no immediate funds, the 8th respondent came forward to supply material and labour components with his own funds. The 8th respondent is preparing to arrange material to lay the road. The petitioner made a complaint dated 15.09.2025. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli, issued orders vide SL.No.866/2025/O dated 20.11.2025. 5. Separate counter-affidavits were filed by the respondents 7 and 8. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents reiterated their contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit and in the counter-affidavits. 7. The petitioner made a complaint in the PGRS dated 15.09.2025 (Ex.P1), complaining about laying a road without permission from the Gram Panchayat and also misuse of Gram Panchayat funds. 8. As seen from the averments in the affidavit, the petitioner’s mother previously served as a Sarpanch, and thereafter the 7th respondent was elected as a Sarpanch. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 6th p. 5 respondent, it was specifically contended that the resolution No.7 dated 09.07.2025, passed by the Gram Panchayat for laying a CC road from the house of late Sambhamurthy to Badhi Ayyanna, since the existing road was not in a fit condition. In fact, the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.09.2025 (Ex.P1) was attended to, and an endorsement vide SL.No.866/2025/O dated 20.11.2025 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 9. The PGRS complaint filed along with the counter-affidavit indicates the condition of the road. In fact, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for the said work, and the 8th respondent, a resident of the village, came forward to supply material and labour. The funds of the Gram Panchayat have not been utilised to lay the road. The representation dated 15.09.2025 (Ex.P1) made by the petitioner was disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer by an endorsement dated 20.11.2025 filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 6th respondent. 10. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that the complaint was not considered is misconceived. No writ petition is maintainable to settle private disputes. Since the representation itself was disposed of by an endorsement dated 20.11.2025, and the petitioner’s right, if any, has not been infringed, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 31.03.2026 SNI p. 6 304 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.26730 of 2025 Dated: 31.03.2026 SNI