ORDER : This petitioner is Eguvakamma Kandriga (for short "E-Kandriga') Gram panchayat, represented by its Sarpanch. It comprises of as many as 8 hamlets. Funds were released for construction of Gram Panchayat Office. The Panchayat had passed a resolution proposing to construct the office building at a hamlet known as Diguvakamma Kandriga (for short "D-Kandriga). On a representation made by some villagers as well as some members of the Gram Panchayat, one of them being the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, the 1st respondent herein, passed orders dated 12-12-2002 directing that the building be constructed at E-Kandriga. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that D-Kandriga is centrally located place in the Gram Panchayat and better suited for construction of Panchayat office. It is also stated that the residents of all other hamlets are in favour of construction of the office building at D-Kandriga. Gram Sabhas are said to have been held on 16-9-2002 and3-10-2002 and that resolutions were passed for construction of the office building at D-Kandriga. The petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings on several factual and legal grounds. 3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter- affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the main village is E-Kandriga and the question of constructing the office building in a hamlet does not arise. He has furnished facts and figures as regards population and the distance among the various hamlets of the Gram Panchayat. Placing reliance upon G.O.Ms. No.227 dated 13-4-1995, the 3rd respondent submits that the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned proceedings accords with the scheme of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short "the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. 4. Sri Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Panchayat, who is headed by a Sarpanch, with majority of members, has passed resolution for construction of Panchayat Office building at D-Kandriga and the same was approved by the Gram Sabhas held twice for this purpose. According to him, the impugned order amounts to interference with the autonomy and independence accorded to the Gram Panchayats under Part IX of the Constitution of India, dealing with the Panchayats. It is his case that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. According to him, the impugned order amounts to interference with the autonomy and independence accorded to the Gram Panchayats under Part IX of the Constitution of India, dealing with the Panchayats. It is his case that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in R. Venkateshwar Rao vs. The District Collector, Krishna 2002 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 557 (A.P.). 5. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri. D.Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the impugned order was passed only with a view to give effect to the provisions of the Act and the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.227 Panchayat Raj, dated 13-4-1995. The place reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.R.Raghupathy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 AIR SC 1681. 6. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner Gram Panchayat has several hamlets. Funds were released for construction of Panchayat Office. While the Gram Panchayat has resolved to construct the office at D-Kandriga, one of the hamlets, the 3rd respondent and several residents of the village, took exception to the same and approached respondents 1 and 2. They complained that the construction of the office building at D-Kandriga is contrary to several provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and that it does not suit the convenience of the residents. Apart from the question of convenience and suitability of the location, the relevant powers of the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha in this regard need to be noted. 7. With a view to restructure the Gram Panchayat and to redefine the sphere of powers to be exercised by them, the Constitution was amended through 73rd Amendment Act 1992. Articles 243 to 243-O were inserted in the Constitution. Consequent upon this amendment, A.P. Panchayat Raj Act came to be enacted, replacing the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act 1964. 8. Article 243-A of the Constitution of India provides for existence of Gram Sabha in each Gram Panchayat, to exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the legislature of the State may provide for. Section 6 of the Act deals with the composition and powers of the Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha comprising of all voters of the Gram Panchayat, is required to meet twice in a year. Section 6 of the Act deals with the composition and powers of the Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha comprising of all voters of the Gram Panchayat, is required to meet twice in a year. It is conferred with the power to consider the Annual Statement of Account, Audit Report, proposals for Taxation, selection of Schemes, etc. The Gram Panchayat comprising of the Sarpanch and members is conferred with the power to administer the Gram panchayat. Panchayat comes into existence on being elected and functions till the expiry of the term. Under Section 4(2) of the Act, the administration of the village is vested in the Gram Panchayat. The same provision mandates that the Gram Panchayat shall not be entitled to exercise functions expressly assigned to any other authority. The powers and functions, particularly for the maintenance of the property of Gram Panchayat, are enumerated under Section 45 and 46 of the Act. Obviously because the matter of construction of an office building does not become controversial, no specific provision is made under the Act. 9. However, in exercise of the Rule Making Power conferred upon it under Section 268 of the Act, the Government framed a set of Rules in G.O.Ms.No.227, Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules') touching on these aspects. Rule 1 mandates that the Gram Panchayat shall provide an office in such a place and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Annexure appended to the Rules. The Annexure comprising 4 clauses reads as under: '1. Every Gram Panchayat shall provide a building for location of its office by constructing one by itself or by taking it one on rent or free of rent and its office shall be located therein. 2. The building referred to above shall be: (i) as far as possible in the center of the main village; (ii) a place accessible to all the members of the Gram Panchayat and to all castes and communities. 3. The Office of the Gram Panchayat once located in a building not owned by the Gram Panchayat shall not be shifted to any other building not owned by the Gram Panchayat except upon a specific resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for the purpose, supported by not less than three fourths of the sanctioned strength and with the previous approval of the District Collector. 4. 4. No building belonging to the Sarpanch, Upa Sarpanch and members of their relations shall be used for the office of the Gram Panchayat without the previous approval of the District Collector concerned.'- 10. The location of headquarters when the Mandals were formed in the State of Andhra Pradesh became the bone of contention among various groups clamouring for establishment of Mandal head quarters in their villages. In J.R.Raghupathy case (2 supra), the Supreme Court had to consider the parameters of the powers of the High Court to interfere with the administrative decisions taken in the matter of location of headquarters. After discussing the matter at length and considering the scope of judicial review in such matters, the Supreme Court held as under: 'The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place "X' rather than place "Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.'- This judgment was followed by this court in several matters, one of it being the judgment in W.P.No.4544 of 2003. incidentally the subject therein related to location of place for construction of Gram Panchayat Office. The discretion of the District Collector in such matters was held to be not amenable to judicial review. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the discretion was not exercised properly, it is open to this Court to interfere with the decision. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.N.Shankarappa v. Uthanur Srinivas 1992 AIR SC 836. The learned counsel attempted to urge that the observations of the Supreme Court made therein have the effect of watering down the judgment in J.R.Raghupathy case (2 supra). 12. It is difficult to accept such a contention. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.N.Shankarappa v. Uthanur Srinivas 1992 AIR SC 836. The learned counsel attempted to urge that the observations of the Supreme Court made therein have the effect of watering down the judgment in J.R.Raghupathy case (2 supra). 12. It is difficult to accept such a contention. What is observed by the Supreme Court in B.N.Shankarappa case(3 supra) is restatement of principle of Administrative law, which is almost omni present in every instance of exercise of power. That observation does not have the effect of restating or rewriting the law laid down in J.R.Raghupathy case (2 supra). 13. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is no doubt true that the Gram Panchayat as well as the Gram Sabha have resolved to construct the office building at D-Kandriga. However, the power of the Gram Panchayat or for that matter the Gram Sabha is not absolute. Section 4(2) of the Act conferring the powers on the Gram Panchayat and Article 243-A of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of the Act, dealing with the powers of Gram Sabha make this amply clear. The resolutions and decisions taken by the said bodies are required to be in conformity with the Rules framed by the Rule Making Authority. It is apt to extract Sections 4(2), 6 of the Act and Article 243-A of the Constitution:- 'Sec.4. Constitution of gram panchayats for villages and their incorporation:- (1) '-'-'-'-'-'- (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the administration of the village shall vest in the Gram Panchayat, but the Gram Panchayat shall not be entitled to exercise functions expressly assigned by or under this Act or any other law to its Sarpanch or executive authority, or to any other local authority, or other authority. 'Sec.6. Gram Sabha:- (1) '-'-'-'-'-'-'- (2) '-'-'-'-'-'-'- (3) '-'-'-'-'-'-'- (4) The Gram Sabha shall observe such rules of procedure at its meeting as may be prescribed'-. 'Article 243-A. Gram Sabha - A Gram Sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide'-. The resolutions hold the field only so long as they are within the framework of the relevant Rules. 'Article 243-A. Gram Sabha - A Gram Sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide'-. The resolutions hold the field only so long as they are within the framework of the relevant Rules. From a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the selection of place for construction of the building by the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha was not as provided for under the Rules. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has no power to overrule or annul the decisions taken by the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha. For this purpose, he places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in R.Venkateswara Rao case (1 supra). That case related to the interpretation of Section 246 of the Act, which conferred power upon the Government to cancel any resolution in exercise of powers suo motu or on reference by an Executive Officer. It was held that the power available only to the Government and the District Collector cannot exercise such a power. Such a contingency does not exist in this case. Through the impugned order, the 1st respondent did not cancel or annul the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha. When the matter as regards the location of office building of the Gram Panchayat was brought to his notice, he called for report as well as the facts and figures touching upon the issue from the 2nd respondent. Taking the same into account, he passed the impugned order directing that the building be constructed at E-Kandriga which was found to be a central place of the village. Through the impugned order, if at all anything , the 1st respondent has only given effect to the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No. 227 dated 13-4-1995. He never purported to decide the validity or otherwise of the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha. 15. There is another aspect of the matter. The relevant provisions confer the power on the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha only as regards administration of funds of the Gram Panchayat. The 1st respondent, who has released the necessary funds, has not only the power, but also the duty to ensure that the funds are spent in accordance with the relevant provisions. The relevant provisions confer the power on the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha only as regards administration of funds of the Gram Panchayat. The 1st respondent, who has released the necessary funds, has not only the power, but also the duty to ensure that the funds are spent in accordance with the relevant provisions. No exception can be taken for the action of the 1st respondent in insisting that the building be constructed provided for under G.O.Ms.No.227. 16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.