Order 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation dated 25-12-1998 submitted by the villagers of Vemulachedu village opposing the proposal for alienation of grazing poramboke in an extent of about Ac. 370-00 in Sy.No.1 of Vemulachedu village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 19 (i) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also offends Sections 55 and 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct the respondents not to alienate or induct any third parties in possession of the said land and declare if any proceedings are issued in respect of the above said land as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass appropriate reliefs. 3. It is brought to my notice that W.P.M.P.No. 343 of 1999 in W.P.No. 295 of 1999, on 12-1-1999 interim direction had been granted but subsequently on 6-8-1999, the same was vacated. In W.P.M.P.No. 17962 of 1999 respondents 4 to 76 are impleaded as parties and these parties claim to be in possession of small extents of lands in pursuance of Eksal lease pattas. Though the respective pleadings are lengthy, the main grievance of the writ petitioners is that a grazing poramboke, which is a communal property under Sections 55 and 58 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'-) is being alienated without following the procedure and though a detailed representation was made on 25-12-1998 relating to the same, the same was not considered. 4. As can be seen from para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the relevant averments read as follows: 'I am also advised to state that the grazing porambokes are vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 58 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and to divest the same to Government alone to competent to issue a notification in Andhra Pradesh Gazette to divest the same from the management of the Gram Panchayat. Before issuing such notification, the Government is bound to issue a notice to the Gram Panchayat as well as the village community and provide reasonable opportunity to oppose the said notification. But the respondents have not issued any such notification or show-cause notice under Sec. 58 (2) of the said Act.'- 5. Before issuing such notification, the Government is bound to issue a notice to the Gram Panchayat as well as the village community and provide reasonable opportunity to oppose the said notification. But the respondents have not issued any such notification or show-cause notice under Sec. 58 (2) of the said Act.'- 5. In the counter-affidavit filed several details had been narrated and a stand was taken that a large extent is remaining vacant and there is no inconvenience caused to the writ petitioners. However, in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is averred as follows: 'In reply to the allegation made in para 4 of the petitioner's affidavit it is submitted that it is true that an extent of Acs. 160.00 is proposed to be assigned to be eligible landless people. It is true that the assignment of the grazing poramboke is prohibited under B.S.O.15-4-2 (A). But it is not total prohibition. It should not be read in isolation. On the other hand it should, be read with B.S.O. 15-35 and 36. Even Section 58(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act permits the withdrawal of the land from the control of Gram Panchayat and assignment of the same to the eligible persons for cultivation. But the prescribed procedure will have to be followed for achieving this purpose. Eksal leases were granted previously to 86 persons on 19-9-1994 and26-10-1994, long prior to the origin of the dispute. No politics are involved in this dispute and only factional interest are existing both sides. The proposal of assignment referred to in the preceding para in only in the offering and it is subject to the approval of the higher authorities. Therefore there is no cause of action for the writ petition for the present and the writ petition is therefore misconceived.'- 6. Inasmuch as the controversy between the parties lies in a short compass, I need not deal with several details, which had been narrated in the respective pleadings. Therefore there is no cause of action for the writ petition for the present and the writ petition is therefore misconceived.'- 6. Inasmuch as the controversy between the parties lies in a short compass, I need not deal with several details, which had been narrated in the respective pleadings. It is also brought to my notice by Sri Narayana Reddy, learned counsel representing the beneficiaries, who are impleaded as parties in the present writ petition as respondents 4 to 76, that the self same writ petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No. 30 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, against some of the beneficiaries relating to the same subject matter, for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit is pending disposal. It is also mentioned that the Government was not impleaded as a party in the said suit. 7. Sri Chary learned counsel representing the Government Pleader for Revenue had drawn my attention to paragraphs 2 to 10 of the counter-affidavit wherein several details had been narrated. The learned counsel also submitted that the writ petition is not a bona fide litigation and it cannot be said that the writ petitioners are representing all the residents of Vemulachedu village as such. The learned counsel also submitted that the authorities are taking steps only in accordance with law in this regard. It is also stated that as far as the representation dated 25-12-1998 is concerned, it is not available in records. 8. The facts are very simple and the controversy between the parties also is simple except for the reason that their appears to be some factional fight between the groups of the society of the area. However, this Court is concerned with the legality or illegality of the said action. Though it is stated that on 25-12-1998 a representation was made by the writ petitioners and several other villagers, at present the stand taken is that the said representation is not traceable in the official records of the authorities. Section 58 of the Act, deals with certain Government porambokes to vest in Gram Panchayat etc. Though it is stated that on 25-12-1998 a representation was made by the writ petitioners and several other villagers, at present the stand taken is that the said representation is not traceable in the official records of the authorities. Section 58 of the Act, deals with certain Government porambokes to vest in Gram Panchayat etc. Section 58 (1) of the Act reads as follows: 'The following porambokes namely grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart stands and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the Gram Panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed.'- Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Act specified as follows: 'The Government may, at any time by notification in the A.P.Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the Gram Panchayat if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government.'- 9. As can be seen from the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it appears the procedure contemplated under Section 58 (2) of the Act and also the relevant Board Standing Orders had not been followed. Be that as it may, it is stated by the writ petitioners that a representation was made, but at present, the same is not traceable in the records. May be that in pursuance of the Eksal Leases, the beneficiaries, respondent Nos. 4 to 76 and certain others may be in possession of small extent of lands. 10. In a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the stand taken by the official respondents 1 to 3 in the counter-affidavit, the petitioners and the residents of Vemulachedu village are given liberty to make a representation narrating all the details to respondent No. 1 in this regard, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order to respondent No.1, and respondent No.1 shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. Except this relief, no other relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioners at this juncture. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.