JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — What is sought to be challenged in this writ application by a Ward Member and a Sarpanch of Barada Gram Pan¬chayat, is the work order issued by the Block Development Officer (for short ‘B.D.O.’) in favour of opposite party No. 5 for executing Dholapasi-Ranapasi Road via Barada. It is alleged that the said work order has been contrary to the decision of the Palli Sabha and is otherwise unjust, illegal and liable to be set aside. The petitioner also have prayed for issuance of appropri¬ate writ or direction quashing the alleged resolution of the Palli Sabha dated 2.1.2000 and the work order issued by the B.D.O. in favour of opposite party No. 5 for execution of the aforesaid road vide Annexure - 7. 2. In the greater interest of the populace, the State Government sponsored “Rural Connectivity Programme” to be imple¬mented directly by the Zilla Parishads with the aim and objective of providing roads between the Districts to Subdivisional head¬quarters, Block headquarters to Tahasil headquarters and from Panchayat Samiti headquarters to Gram Panchayat headquarters. In consonance with the circular issued by the Government on 26.6.99 (Annexure-A/3), if a Zilla Parishad decides not to execute the work by contractors, an option was given to get the work executed under Rural Employment Programme by selecting an executant in a properly constituted Palli Sabha. The petitioners submit that a Palli Sabha was convened on 2.12.2000 for the purpose of select¬ing an executant for construction of the aforesaid road under the scheme. All the members attended the Palli Sabha, but it is alleged, in course of discussion, some hooligans including oppo¬site party No. 5 created disturbance and interrupted the proceed¬ings of the meeting. Taking advantage of the situation, opposite party No. 5 said to have managed to get his name recommended and accordingly a resolution was prepared and forwarded to the B.D.O. It is further alleged that in spite of protests by the petition¬ers and others, the B.D.O. issued the work order in favour of opposite party No. 5. While the matter stood thus, the Project Director, D.R.D.A.-cum-Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad directed the B.D.O. to make an enquiry and submit his report regarding selection of opposite party No. 5 in the Palli Sabha. While the matter stood thus, the Project Director, D.R.D.A.-cum-Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad directed the B.D.O. to make an enquiry and submit his report regarding selection of opposite party No. 5 in the Palli Sabha. In spite of receiving the said letter, the B.D.O. did not take any action and the petitioners, having no other way out, filed this writ appli¬cation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. By order dated 19.12.2000 this Court was pleased to stay operation of the work order dated 4.12.2000 (Annexure-7) and directed issuance of notice to all the opposite parties. After receiving notice opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed counter-affidavit sworn to by the B.D.O., Dhenkanal.In the coun¬ter-affidavit, while challenging the locus standi of the peti¬tioners, the opposite parties emphatically submitted that the proceedings of the Palli Sabha were duly conducted on 2.12.2000 and it was unanimously resolved to entrust the work to opposite party No. 5. In consonance with the resolutions after following the modalities prescribed by the Government in different circu¬lars/resolutions, work order was issued in favour of opposite party No. 5, to execute the work under the Rural Connectivity Programme. The total value of the work is about Rs. 3,50,000.00; out of which about 30 per cent of the work has been executed by opposite party No. 5. It is alleged that due to pendency of the writ application and the stay order passed, the further work of the road could not be completed and that non-completion of the work is causing immense problem and difficulties to the villag¬ers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners took exception to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 which is sworn to by the B.D.O. and strenuously submitted that as the B.D.O. has clandestinely entrusted the work to opposite party No. 5, the facts stated in the counter-affidavit should to be accepted. But then the counter-affidavit has been sworn not by the B.D.O. on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, and the State Government has not disowned the authority of the B.D.O. to swear the affidavit. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the facts stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 are not correct. Opposite party No. 5, the beneficiary under the scheme, has also filed a voluminous counter strongly repudiating the allega¬tions made in the writ application. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the facts stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 are not correct. Opposite party No. 5, the beneficiary under the scheme, has also filed a voluminous counter strongly repudiating the allega¬tions made in the writ application. It has been emphatically averred that the Palli Sabha in its meeting held on 2.12.2000, conscientiously selected opposite party No. 5 to execute the work. Thus there is absolutely no irregularity or illegality in issuance of the work order by the B.D.O. It is also reiterated that after receiving the work order opposite party No. 5 has executed more than thirty per cent of the work and any interfer¬ence at this stage would not only prejudice him but also shall not be in the best interest of the beneficiaries. Opposite party No. 5 has also challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present writ application. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that though by order dated 19.12.2000, the petitioners were directed to take out notice and serve four copies of the writ petition on the State Counsel, no efforts were taken by the petitioners and as would be evident from the order dated 9.1.2001, this Court directed to issue notice to opposite parties 2 to 5 by special messenger and further directed that if the petitioners failed to file requi¬sites by the next date, the writ application would stand dis¬missed. Only thereafter notice of admission was issued and stay order was communicated. 6. In view of the allegations and counter-allegations, with regard to execution of work by opposite party No. 5, this Court by order dated 12.9.2001 directed the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Dhenkanal, to cause a spot enquiry and file an affida¬vit before this Court indicating the progress of the work and as to whether the contention of opposite party No. 5, that he has already executed forty per cent of the work, was correct. 7. In compliance with the said order, the Project Director D.R.D.A. (O.P. No. 4) filed an affidavit on 18.9.2001 stating as follows : “On enquiry being made, it has been asserted that the opp. party No. 5 has undertaken work to the extent of Rs. 1,05,563.00 and the works undertaken by the opp. party No. 5 has been record¬ed in M.D. 1473 at pages 69 to 73. party No. 5 has undertaken work to the extent of Rs. 1,05,563.00 and the works undertaken by the opp. party No. 5 has been record¬ed in M.D. 1473 at pages 69 to 73. Accordingly a detailed work undertaken by him is furnished as follows : (i) Collection of morrum 1206 cu.m. @ 52.75 per cu.m. Rs. 63,616.00 (ii) Spreading of morrum 1080 cu.m. @ 38.84 per cu.m. Rs. 41,947.00 Rs. 1,05,563.00 Length covered as morrum sub-base is 1335 mtr. i.e., 1335 mtr. x 13.60 mtr. x 6.255 mtr. = Rs. 1081-35 cu.m. or say 1080 cu.m. Communication having been received from the counsel appear¬ing for the D.R.D.A. correspondence has been made with him and copy thereof dated 15.9.2001 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/4 for perusal of this Honourable Court.” 8. The road is being constructed for the public benefit. Admittedly the work order has been issued in favour of opposite party No. 5 and as would be evident from the report of the Project Director, D.R.D.A., who is an independent officer of the State, opposite party No. 5 has already executed more than thirty per cent of the work. Roads are the lifelines of civilisation and have to be promptly laid. In view of the categorical averments made in the affidavit on behalf of the Project Director, D.R.D.A. that opposite party No. 5 has already executed the work to some extent; cost of which would be Rs. 1,05,563.00, while the total cost of work is Rs. 3,50,000.00, we feel that without entering into the arena of controversies between the parties, which are mostly factual in nature, interest of justice and equity will be best served if opposite party No. 5 who has already executed more than thirty per cent of the work, would be allowed to complete the project. Cancelling the work order at this stage and entrust¬ing it to any other person, will not only cause harassment to the villagers. but will also cause loss to the State exchequer inas¬much as by efflux of time, definitely there will be enhancement of the cost. Cancelling the work order at this stage and entrust¬ing it to any other person, will not only cause harassment to the villagers. but will also cause loss to the State exchequer inas¬much as by efflux of time, definitely there will be enhancement of the cost. Taking into consideration the overall picture and after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and for the rea¬sons stated above, we refrain from interfering with the decision of the B.D.O. and decline to set aside the work order (Annexure-7) issued in favour of opposite party No. 5, in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct that opposite party No. 5 shall complete the entire work of construction of road from Dholapasi-Ranapasi via Barada under the direct supervision of the Project Director, D.R.D.A. (opp. party No. 4). We also direct the Collector, Dhen¬kanal (opp. party No. 2) to inspect the work either personally or through agency and ensure that the work is properly executed. It is needless to say that if any deficiency is noticed in the work already said to have been executed by opposite party No. 5, the same shall be intimated to him in writing and opposite party No. 5 shall be bound to rectify the same With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is disposed of. P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J., I agree. Application disposed of.