IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24265 of 2004 Between: Brahmani Mahila Podupu Sangam, Uppalapadu, Guntur District, rep., by its Organizer Lella Janakamma, w/o L.Surya Prakasa Rao, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman, Mandal Level Implementation Committee & Mandal Revenue Officer, Civil Supplies, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Sri Lakshmi Mahila Podupu Group, rep. by its Organizer Baireddi Nagamani Uppalapadu, Guntur Dist R2 is impleaded as per court order dt. 14-9-2005 in WPMP 16958 of 2005 .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent in passing order in Rc.No.247/2002A, dated 20-7-2004 without conducting enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner- Brahmani Mahila Podupu Sangam, Uppalapadu, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass appropriate orders and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24265 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 20-07-2004, as illegal and arbitrary. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the 1st respondent came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to supply sufficient food to the school children as per the norms. Any appointment of implementing agency is not permanent, but it is only for a fixed period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, at this juncture, even if the impugned order is set aside, the question of reappointing the petitioner does not arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as implementing agency under mid-day meals scheme, in future, as and when such appointment is made. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}