Order M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri G. Elishai learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and Sri V. Venu Gopala Rao, learned counsel for 7th respondent. 2. In this Writ petition an interesting question as to "Whether the office of a Grampanchayat could be shifted from the building where it is presently located to another building, without the said Grampanchayat being consulted at all, at the instance of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and the then Hon'ble Minister for the State Government?" 3. The petitioners herein are the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members of Peddanapalli Grampanchayat (6th respondent herein) in Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. They were elected as Ward Members of the said Gram Panchayat in the elections held in July, 2013. The 1st petitioner was elected as Upa-Sarpanch by the members of the Grampanchayat after the elections were held. 4. According to petitioners, since the old office building of the Grampanchayat (in an area of 70 sq. yds. in Sy. No. 169/2) was in a dilapidated condition, pursuant to a resolution No. 140 dt. 28-08-2003, the 6th respondent Gram Panchayat resolved to request for construction of a new office building for the Grampanchayat in a site situated on the backside of P.W.S. tank in Peddanapalli village. Basing on the said resolution, funds were sanctioned under the SGRY (Stream-I) of Rs. 3.327 Lakhs in the year 2004 and a new building was constructed in November, 2005 and the Office of the Grampanchayat started functioning from the new premises from 13-12-2005. 5. In August, 2013, the petitioners and the 7th respondent/Sarpanch assumed office after the elections were held to the Gram Panchayat body. 6. It appears that the 7th respondent, the Sarpanch of the said 6th respondent Grampanchayat wanted to shift the office of the Grampanchayat back to the old building and when she made such a proposal in the Grampanchayat meeting in October, 2013, the petitioners opposed it since the old building was in a dilapidated condition. 7. According to petitioners, 7th respondent then approached Sri Thota Narasimham, member of the then Ministry in the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and brought pressure on respondent Nos. 7. According to petitioners, 7th respondent then approached Sri Thota Narasimham, member of the then Ministry in the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and brought pressure on respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to issue orders to shift the office of the 6th respondent Grampanchayat to the old building; and thereupon respondent Nos. 3 to 5, without consulting the Grampanchayat and its members, recommended the shifting of office of Grampanchayat to the old building. On the basis of those recommendations, the impugned proceedings Rc. No. 3631/2013-A7 dt. 20-12-2013 was issued by 3rd respondent directing the 6th respondent Gram Panchayat to shift its office to the old building from the existing building. 8. Petitioners contend that not only that the previous office building is an old building, it is not in a good condition and is insufficient for running administration of the Panchayat; that when the Government had constructed a new Panchayat office with public funds, there was no logic in shifting from that new office building again to an old building; that the new building constructed has four rooms and two halls and was adequately catering to the needs of the Grampanchayat from December, 2005 and is also located in the middle of the village, while the previous office building is a small one of extent 70 sq. yds located in a remote corner of the village and there was also no access to it by vehicles. 9. On 31.12.2013, in W.P.M.P. No. 48431 of 2013, this Court suspended the impugned proceedings. 10. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the action of 3rd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings directing the shifting of the office of Grampanchayat from the new building on the backside of the P.W.S. tank in the village to the old building in Sy. No. 169/2, without obtaining the consent of 6th respondent Grampanchayat i.e. 6 members, that too at the dictation of the then Cabinet Minister Sri Thota Narasimham, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 40 and 243-G of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Lt. The learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Lt. Gen.Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another, (2000) 6 SCC 698 , and contended that the process in taking the decision to relocate Grampanchayat office in the previous old Office building after a new building is constructed is amenable to judicial review, although the decision per se may not be, and that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant considerations have resulted in such a decision being taken as in the present case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit through Panchayat Secretary of the 6th respondent Grampanchayat. They contend that the Writ Petition is misconceived; that 7th respondent had made a request on 18-11-2013 to the then Minister Sri Thota Narasimham for taking steps to shift the office of the Grampanchayat; the 7th respondent had acted on the request of the villagers, of 6th respondent Grampanchayat; that the new office building was constructed in 2005 in land classified as "Tank poramboke"; and it was decided to shift the Office of the Grampanchayat from the new building constructed in 2005 to the old Grampanchayat office which was located in the middle of the village and was easy to approach, while the present office building is in the corner of the village. They contended that the Hon'ble Minister instructed 3rd respondent to initiate necessary action; the 3rd respondent then instructed 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report; the 4th respondent inspected the village, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to 3rd respondent on 13-12-2013 recommending that the old building is not in a dilapidated condition and it could be used for the purpose of Grampanchayat office/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also contended that 3rd respondent instructed 5th respondent also to submit a report and 5th respondent also conducted an enquiry; 5th respondent stated that in 2005, without there being any resolution of the 6th respondent Grampanchayat, the office was shifted from the then old building to the new building; and ultimately the impugned proceedings came to be issued by 3rd respondent directing the Panchayat Secretary of the 6th respondent Grampanchayat to take steps to shift it's office to the previous office building. It is also pleaded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms. No. 188 dt. 21-07-2011 prohibiting the use of tank poramboke land and in view of the said G.O., it is not permissible to run the Grampanchayat in the new building, which is located in "tank poramboke" land. 12. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in J.R. Raghupathy and others Vs. State of A.P. and others, (1988) 4 SCC 364 . He contended that where the office of the Grampanchayat should be located is for the respondents to decide; this Court ought not to sit in appeal over the said decision; that location of a Grampanchayat office is depending upon various factors; and it is not for the High Court to evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the said Grampanchayat office. 13. The 7th respondent in her counter-affidavit supported the plea of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and also reiterated that when the decision to construct a new building was taken in the year 2004, the then Grampanchayat body had suppressed the fact that the land, in which the new building was to be constructed, was in a tank poramboke and that it obtained funds from the Zilla Parishad and constructed the new Grampanchayat building. She further alleged that on account of political rivalry, the petitioners have filed this case. She alleged that in view of G.O.Ms. No. 188 dt. 21-07-2011, the Grampanchayats have to protect tanks, tank bunds, open lands, canals and other poramboke lands, and in view of the said G.O., it is not possible to run the Grampanchayat office in the tank poramboke site. She admitted that at her request only, the then Minister in the State Cabinet had initiated the process for shifting of Grampanchayat office to the previous old office building. She also contended that old building was structurally stable. 14. I have noted the submissions of both sides. 15. The A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted by the State legislature in the light of the Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992 whereunder the existing part-IX was substituted and Panchayats were made as institutions of self-government and comprehensive provisions came to be incorporated for democratic decentralization of governance on the Gandhian principle of participatory democracy. 16. 15. The A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted by the State legislature in the light of the Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992 whereunder the existing part-IX was substituted and Panchayats were made as institutions of self-government and comprehensive provisions came to be incorporated for democratic decentralization of governance on the Gandhian principle of participatory democracy. 16. Article 40 of the Constitution of India states: "40. Organisation of village panchayats.--The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. " 17. Article 243-G of the Constitution of India makes a Panchayat as an institution of self-governance. Article 243-G states: "243-G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats.--Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the legislature of a State may, by law, endow the panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to-- (a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. " 18. In tune with the above provisions, the Act was enacted and Section 4(2) thereof provided that subject to the provisions of the Act, the administration of the village shall vest in the Grampanchayat. Section 243 of the Act made it the duty of the Grampanchayat to make reasonable provisions for carrying out the requirements of the village. Several responsibilities were also conferred on the Grampanchayats in Chapter-II of the Act. 19. In Village Panchayat, Calangute Vs. Additional Director of Panchayat-II and others, (2012) 7 SCC 550 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question whether a Panchayat constituted under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 could question the decision of the Additional Director of Panchayat, who set aside the decision of the appellant therein, which had asked a private company indulging in unauthorized construction over Panchayat property to stop it. The Court held that the Panchayat had locus to question the decision of the 1st respondent not only as a body representing the will of the people, but also as a body corporate in terms of the provisions of the Act. It held that when any of its legal rights are infringed by authorities including the Government, the Grampanchayat would have locus to question it. The Court held: "22. An analysis of Article 40 and Articles 243 to 243-0 shows that the Framers of the Constitution had envisaged the village panchayat to be the foundation of the country's political democracy--a decentralised form of government where each village was to be responsible for its own affairs. By enacting the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, Parliament has attempted to remedy the defects and remove the deficiencies of the Panchayati Raj system evolved after Independence, which failed to live up to the expectation of the people in rural India. The provisions contained in Part IX provide firm basis for self-governance by the people at the grass root through the institution of panchayats at different levels. 23. For achieving the objectives enshrined in Part IX of the Constitution, the State Legislatures have enacted laws and made provision for devolution of powers upon and assigned various functions listed in the Eleventh Schedule to the panchayats. The primary focus of the subjects enumerated in the Eleventh Schedule is on social and economic development of the rural parts of the country by conferring upon the panchayat the status of a constitutional body. Parliament has ensured that the panchayats would no longer perform the role of simply executing the programs and policies evolved by the political executive of the State. By virtue of the provisions contained in Part IX, the panchayats have been empowered to formulate and implement their own programs of economic development and social justice in tune with their status as the third tier of the Government which is mandated to represent the interests of the people living within its jurisdiction. The system of panchayats envisaged in this part aims at establishing strong and accountable systems of governance that will in turn ensure more equitable distribution of resources in a manner beneficial to all." 20. The system of panchayats envisaged in this part aims at establishing strong and accountable systems of governance that will in turn ensure more equitable distribution of resources in a manner beneficial to all." 20. I am of the opinion that the impugned order could not have been issued by 3rd respondent since the 6th respondent Grampanchayat is a body representing the will of the people and an institution of self-governance and all affairs relating to administration of village having been vested in it. Without a resolution by the Grampanchayat agreeing for shifting of it's office from the new building to the old building, merely at the instance of the Sarpanch and a Minister in the State Cabinet, and on the basis of certain reports submitted by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, 3rd respondent could not have passed the impugned order. If such a process is permitted, it would render the 5th respondent Grampanchayat not as an institution of self-government but as a puppet in the hands of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Therefore, the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent has to be held contrary to Articles 40 and 243-G of the Constitution of India. 21. As regards the decision in J.R. Raghupathy (supra) relied upon by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in that case, under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh District (Formation) Act, 1974, an issue arose whether the decision to locate Mandal headquarters at a particular place in the State was a purely Governmental decision and therefore not amenable to Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. The Court held that although there is no statutory provision to decide location of the Mandal headquarters and matter was governed by certain Government Orders issued on 25-07-1985 by the State Government (wherein guidelines were issued for formation of Mandals and for location of Mandal headquarters were laid down), such guidelines did not have statutory force and no Mandamus would be issued to enforce them. The Court held that location of headquarters of a Mandal by the Government, even if it is in breach of guidelines prescribed therefor, was not justiciable; and non-observance of such administrative instructions did not give any right to a person to come to Court for any relief for alleged breach to such instructions. The Court held that location of headquarters of a Mandal by the Government, even if it is in breach of guidelines prescribed therefor, was not justiciable; and non-observance of such administrative instructions did not give any right to a person to come to Court for any relief for alleged breach to such instructions. It further held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal headquarters at a particular place. 22. In my opinion, the above decision has no application to the facts of the case for the reason that in the present case, unlike in that case, the State Government or respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were not conferred with any powers to decide location of Grampanchayat office. Also in view of Articles 40 r/w 243-G of the Constitution of India and Section 4(2) of the Act, the Grampanchayat was an institution of self-governance and the administration of the village vested in it. So without its consent through a resolution passed by the majority of the members, 7th respondent alone by using the help of the a Minister in the State Cabinet, could not have made the 3rd respondent to issue the impugned order shifting the office of the Grampanchayat from the existing building constructed in December, 2005 to the old building. 23. As regards the contention of respondents that the construction of the building in 2005 was also without resolution of the Grampanchayat and that the building was constructed in 2005 in a tank poramboke (in which the said building cannot be allowed to exist in view of G.O.Ms. No. 188 dt. 21-07-2011), is concerned, the said contention is also not tenable. 24. Firstly, the construction of the new building at the new location in the year 2005 and shifting of the new building in December, 2005 was never challenged by anybody. Admittedly, the office of the grampanchayat functioned in the new building constructed in 2005 from December, 2005 onwards. G.O.Ms. No. 188 dt. 21-07-2011 directed the Panchayat Secretaries, Executive Officers of Grampanchayats to protect tanks, tank bunds etc., would have only prospective operation and if any constructions have been made long prior to issuance of such a G.O. as in the present case, it is not open to respondent Nos. G.O.Ms. No. 188 dt. 21-07-2011 directed the Panchayat Secretaries, Executive Officers of Grampanchayats to protect tanks, tank bunds etc., would have only prospective operation and if any constructions have been made long prior to issuance of such a G.O. as in the present case, it is not open to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to contend that the functioning of the office of the gram panchayat in the new building became illegal on account of such G.O. This amounts to giving the State Government Order retrospective operation, which it does not have. 25. It is also important to note that there are only 14 members in the panchayat, of whom 9 members have approached this Court opposing the shifting of office of Grampanchayat from the new building where it has been functioning since December, 2005 to the old building. Thus, the majority of members of Grampanchayat are against the said decision. In this scenario, at the instance of 7th respondent and contrary to the majority view, it is not open to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to decide for shifting of office of Grampanchayat to the old office building from the new building constructed in 2005. 26. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned proceedings issued by 3rd respondent are violative of Articles 40 and 243-G of the Constitution of India and Section 4(2) of the Act and if allowed to stand, would render the 6th respondent Grampanchayat not as an institution of self-government but as an institution which is sub-servient to the political executive. 27. So the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in Rc. No. 3631/2013-A7 dt. 20-12-2013 are set aside. The 3rd respondent as well as 7th respondent shall pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each to all the petitioners. 28. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.