HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.Nos. 6624, 894, 898, 6649, 6836 & 10217 of 2004 DATE: 08-02-2008 Between: The Lions Club of Hanamakonda and others ……………… Petitioners and 1. The Director, E-Seva, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and others. ………….. Respondents HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.Nos.6624, 894, 898, 6649, 6836 & 10217 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in directing the second and third respondents to stop the contractual agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent company and also the proceedings of the fourth respondent on different dates as bad, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct respondents 2 to 4 to continue to avail the service of the petitioners for collecting C.C. charges on par with other agencies. 2. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they are clubbed and this common order is passed. 3. In the year 1987, the APSEB entrusted the petitioners with the collection work of the consumer charges pertaining to Hanamakonda Town. The petitioners were agreed to be paid Rs.1/- per bill towards service charges and entered into an agreement with APSEB. As per the terms of agreement, the petitioners were authorized to undertake the collection of the amount of consumer charges from the consumers of electricity at Hanamakonda. The petitioners employed several persons as contract labour to attend to the collection work of the said bills. The petitioners used to collect the amounts daily and remit it to the account of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Hanamakonda. The petitioners executed bank guarantee in favour of APNPDLC and also got executed security deposits from each collection agent. While the matter stood thus, the Government of A.P. has been sponsoring E- Seva centres throughout the State and in pursuance of that, the third respondent addressed a letter to the Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operations of the respective places instructing to stop the collection of C.C. charges by private agencies. The fourth respondent, through the proceedings on different dates, asked the petitioners to stop their functioning. The existing contract is now abruptly being put to an end simply based upon the instructions of the first respondent and the Government of A.P. No reasons were stated by the third and fourth respondents. The respondents simply mentioned that because the first respondent and the Joint Collector instructed for closure of the collection centres, the petitioners were asked to stop the functioning. 4. It is also contended that the E-Seva centres were collecting Rs.5/- per the bill, whereas the petitioners were collecting Rs.1/- only. The instructions to stop the collection work through the petitioners agencies is making the persons working under them jobless and put the petitioners to loss, therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents as indicated above. 5. The first respondent submitted that in pursuance of the instructions of the Government, they established E-Seva centres for collection of electricity bills etc. and as the centres are established at various places for collection of the amount, it cannot be said that there is any discrimination in respect of the petitioners directing them to stop the work. 6. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that as the Government took a policy decision, it cannot be interfered in this writ petition and as it is unilaterally applied throughout the State, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the E-Seva centres have been established and authorized to collect the electricity bills and they were successfully functioning. In the light of the policy decision taken by the Government in establishing E-Seva centres at various places for the said purpose and as the action of the respondents was in pursuance of the instructions of the Government, it cannot be said that the action of respondents 2 and 3 is illegal and arbitrary. Since the E-Seva centres were established in view of the policy decision taken by the Government, no relief can be granted to the petitioners while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:08-02-2008 YCR