JUDGMENT :- (Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing Rc.No.2973/2008-A4 (P) Dated: 31.05.2008 a illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent 1 and 2 herein to drop all further proceeding in this regard.) The petitioner is a Gram Panchayat, Sidhantam of West Godavari District. It feels aggrieved by the proceedings dated 31-05-2008, issued by the District panchayat officer, the 1st respondent herein. The 3rd respondent herein indented to establish a Petroleum Outlet in Sidhantam Village. He submitted an application to the District Collector, West Godavari, and other agencies. The District Collector, in turn, issued proceedings dated 01-04-2008, directing the Thasildar, Penugonda, to require the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, to pass a resolution on the application. On a requisition made by the Thasildar, the petitioner considered the matter and passed a resolution dated 22-05-2008, rejecting the proposal. The same was conveyed to the Tasildar, Penugonda. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, dated 22-05-2008. Through the impugned order, the 1st respondent had set aside the resolution and accorded permission to the 3rd respondent, for establishment of the petroleum outlet. The petitioner contends that there was no application of the 3rd respondent before the Gram Panchayat, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for him, to prefer an appeal. It is stated that the 1st respondent does not have the jurisdiction, under section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act.) to entertain appeal against the order of the Gram Panchayat. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the request for according permission to establish a petroleum outlet was rejected, only on account of the fact that the husband of the Sarpanch of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, is operating an outlet in the village. He contends that the statutory remedy of appeal was availed, and the 1st respondent had granted the relief, strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. He contends that the statutory remedy of appeal was availed, and the 1st respondent had granted the relief, strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and Sri S.V. Sesa Sai, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent did not make any application to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. His case came to be considered by the petitioner, only on a request made by the Tasildar, which in turn, was in compliance with the direction issued by the District Collector. The petitioner examined the request, and rejected the same, through the resolution dated 22-05-2008. There was no occasion for the 3rd respondent to approach the 1st Respondent under Section 128 of the Act. The reason is that, what can be maintained before the 1st respondent, under Section 128, is only a second appeal, against the decision of the Gram Panchayat, which, in turn, shall be in an appeal, against the order of the Executive Authority, once it is clear that the resolution passed by the petitioner was not in exercise of the appellate powers, against the order of the executive Authority, there was no basis for the 3rd respondent, to prefer an appeal to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent invoked another provision, viz., Section 268 of the Act. This has absolutely nothing to do with the exercise of Appellate powers. It is only a provision, which enables the Government to frame Rules, under the Act. Even assuming that the reference was to Section 246 of the Act, which provides for cancellation of resolution of Gram Panchayat, it is to be noted that such a power is not conferred in the 1st respondent, at all. Viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. It is however, made clear that, it shall be opened to the 3rd respondent, who intends to establish a petroleum outlet, to make an application to the concerned Authority of the Gram Panchayat, which, in turn, shall be processed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.