(1.) Heard Sri SS. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. Ch. Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayats for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri S. Prasad Babu, learned counsel representing Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the implead petitioners in W.P.M.P. No. 35922 of 2011. The petitioners claim that after sanction of amounts for construction of the Gram Panchayat Office Building in Gangamambapuram by the State Government under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme with the title "Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra", the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 25.06.2010 for construction of the Panchayat Office Building in S.No. 307 in Ac. 0.06 cents. The Sarpanch was appointed as the person to execute the work and the District Collector accorded sanction allotting Rs. 10 lakhs on 30.06.2010. The Sarpanch, however, was disinclined to commence the construction on which a representation was given by the petitioners, who were members of the Panchayat, to the Mandal Development Officer on 10.12.2010 and the District Collector on 03.01.2011. The enquiry and report by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer recommended construction only at Gangamambapuram and not at Abbirajukandriga, as proposed by the Sarpanch. Construction did not commence in spite of further communications and, hence, the petitioners desired construction of the Panchayat Office Building at Gangamambapuram with the funds of Rs. 10 lakhs already sanctioned.
(2.) The District Panchayat Officer, in his pleadings before the Court, stated that the Sarpanch convened a Grama Sabha meeting on 08.12.2010 expressing his opinion for construction of the Panchayat Building at S. No. 263/12, but G.O.Ms.No. 227, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Panchayats-II) Department, dated 13.04.1995, and G.O. Ms. No. 220, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Panchayats-II) Department, dated 11.06.2010, expressly mandated that the location of the building shall be at the center of the village being accessible to all the villagers and it is for the Gram Panchayat to identify the location. The District Panchayat Officer further stated that on the directions of the Collector, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer again convened a Grama Sabha on 17.01.2011 and submitted a report to the Collector about the proposed place at Abbirajukandriga near a wine shop in Tamilnadu border to be unsecured and unsuitable, while the proposal for construction at Gangamambapuram is feasible. Accordingly, the present Special Officer also convened a meeting as per the interim directions of this Court, dated 20.08.2011, wherein the proposal for construction at Gangamambapuram was reiterated and, accordingly, the construction of the building started and was nearing completion.
(3.) While so, six petitioners filed W.P.M.P. No. 35922 of 2011 requesting to implead them in the writ petition relying on the Grama Sabha resolutions, dated 22.10.2010 and 08.122010, said to have been accepted by the Gram Panchayat. The proposed 10th respondent also filed a counter affidavit contending that the subsequent resolutions must be deemed to have superseded the earlier resolutions and various other contentions are raised to show that construction of the Panchayat Office Building at Abbirajukandriga is in public interest.