B. MAHESH NAIDU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2-District Collector, and respondent No.3-District Panchayat Officer, with respect to his complaint dated 05.06.2020 alleging certain omissions and commissions on the part of respondent No.6-Sarpanch, Chinatandrapadu Gram Panchayat.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat. In the light of the view taken by this Court, it is not necessary for this Court to issue notice to respondent who has been made as party-respondent in his personal capacity.

(3.) It is the allegation of the petitioner that there are omissions and commissions on the part of respondent No.6 in discharge of his functions as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner being Upa-Sarpanch and also joint signatory for the payments to be made on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner is cautious of the utilisation of funds of Gram Panchayat and he had in fact refused to sign the cheques with respect to certain expenditure alleged to have been incurred by the Gram Panchayat. The 6th respondent-Sarpanch in the guise of discharge of functions as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not cooperating and mis-utilising the funds. The petitioner submits that he made a complaint dated 05.06.2020 as a responsible person to the Executive Engineer and also marked a copy of the complaint to the District Collector and also District Panchayat Officer, and as no action is being taken on his complaint dated 05.06.2020, he seeks a mandamus.