L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS case illustrates as to how public interest litigations pursued in half-hearted manner would scuttle the democratic Process.

( 2 ) PULLURU is a Gram Panchayat in Krishna District. It comprised of village of Pulluru proper and several hamlets, such as, Laxminagarapuram, Kothagudem and Kothamangapuram. Before the General Elections for the Gram Panchayat held in 1995, proposals were initiated for bifurcating the Pulluru Gram Panchayat and for constituting a new Gram Panchayat for Kothamangapuram. A notice to that effect was issued on 24-4-1995 by the District Collector, the 2nd respondent herein. Pulluru Gram Panchayat had agreed for the proposal and passed resolution to that effect. On the basis of this resolution and in the absence of any objection, the 2nd respondent issued final notice dated 12-5-1995 forming the Kothamangapuram Gram Panchayat, through proceedings dated 4594/94/panchayats-8, dated 12-5-1995.

( 3 ) TWO residents of the village filed WP No. 10987/95, questioning the bifurcation. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, through order dated 22-11-1995. While the proceedings referred to in the order related to bifurcation of Pulluru Gram Panchayat, the order read as though it related to bifurcation of Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat into Seetharampuram and Marribandam. The petitioners in that writ petition appear to have been satisfied by getting the election to Gram Panchayat stayed. They did not evince any interest either to get the order corrected or to take further steps.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, another person by name Vajrala Kumar Reddy filed WP No. 16896 of 2000, complaining that failure on the part of the respondents in passing the final order with regard to bifurcation and non-compliance with the directions contained in WP No. 10987/95 is illegal and arbitrary. In that writ petition, the respondents pleaded that their inaction in the matter was only on account of the mentioning of the name of a different village vis-a-vis the notification dated 12-5-1995, This Court referred to these contentions and ultimately, through order dated 2-1-2002, directed the 2nd respondent herein to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the directions of this Court in WP No. 10987 of 1995 as well as the relevant provisions of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short the Act ) and the rules made thereunder.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent took his own time in taking further steps. It was only on 16-3-2002 that he addressed the 1st respondent i. e. , the Government, seeking clarification as to whether it was permissible to pass final orders on the basis of the preliminary notification issued on 24-4-1995. The 1st respondent after two months, informed the 2nd respondent, through letter dated 3-6-2002, that it is not permissible to issue final notification since the rules relating to bifurcation of Gram Panchayat issued in G. O. Ms. No. 515 dated 17-8-1994 have been rescinded through G. O. Rt. No. 1634, PR and R. D. Department, dated 12-10-2001. It was further stated that under the latter G. O. , ban was imposed on bifurcation of Gram Panchayats. Having received such a communication, the 2nd respondent has passed orders dated 5-7-2002 withdrawing the notification 12-5-1995. Thus, the mess created by the enthusiastic petitioners in WP No. 10987/95 and the indifferent officials of the respondents has deprived the villagers of erstwhile Pulluru Gram Panchayat of two elections.

( 6 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 5-7-2002 on several grounds. According to the petitioner, once the notification dated 12-5-1995 was set aside by this Court in WP No. 10987/95, the question of the 2nd respondent withdrawing the same does not arise. As regards the basis pleaded for not proceeding with the matter of bifurcation of Pulluru Village, the petitioner contends that the bifurcation of Pulluru Village does not come in the purview of ban and the respondents canno

Click Here to Read the rest of this document