IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26706 of 1998 Between: Sri Triveni Educational Academy(society Regd.no.423/90) Machilipatnam) Rep.by its President Sri Kilaru Venkateswara 5-1-158/1,K.K.Rao complex Yellandu Cross Road Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & Chairman Dist Rural Developement Agency Khammam. 2 The Project Director Dist Rural Development Agency Khammam. 3 Sri S.K.Chhottray,IFS,Project Director Dist Rural Developemento Agency Khammam. .....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 an appropriate writ,order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (i) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.D1/1560/96, dt.16-09-1997 cancelling the project implementation agencyship of the petitioner-society for the Drought Prone Area Programme Block,Kothagudem and proceedings in Rc.No.D2/1560/96, dt.10-12-1997 of the 2nd respondent addressed to the Dist Educational Officer, Khammam recommending to blacklist the petitioner society not to release the amounts due to the petitioner-society arbitrary,illegal,unjust and violation of Art,14 of the constitution (ii) declare that the petitioner-society is entitled to continue as project implementation agency in respect of the project prone area programme block, kothagudem for the period for which it was appointed that it 4 years of completion of the projects entrusted to it whichever is earlier as per the memorandum of understanding entered at the time of appointment of the petitioner-society. (iii) direct the 3rd respondent to adequently compensate the petitioner-society for the malicious deeds performed by him by abusing his official position more with a view to have a proper accountability the same recovered from his personal funds/sources of income and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.26706 of 1998 ORDER: The petitioner society is registered under the Societies Registration Act. Basically its activities are to establish educational institutions. It is stated that the petitioner also undertakes other social activities. The District Rural Development Agency, (for short ‘D.R.D.A’) Khammam, has undertaken certain watershed programmes in the district. As required under the scheme the works are to be entrusted to what is known as “Project Implementation Agency” (for short the ‘P.I.A’ ) Through proceedings dated 26.11.1996 the District Collector-cum- Chairman, D.R.D.A. appointed the petitioner as P.I.A. for eight watersheds. Corresponding agreement was entered into on 26.11.1996 stipulating the terms and conditions of the works. Correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the first respondent in relation to the nature of implementation of the scheme. Some dissatisfaction was expressed by the respondent as to the method of functioning of the petitioner. Ultimately the first respondent passed an order dated 16.9.1997 directing that the agency of the petitioner in respect of 8 watersheds be cancelled on administrative grounds. A direction was issued to the concerned to settle the accounts. The petitioner was also entrusted with the work of establishment of adult literacy center under Non-formal Education Scheme. The first respondent addressed a letter dated 30.12.1997 to the District Educational Officer stating inter alia that on account of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner as P.I.A., the entrustment was cancelled and that it be blacklisted. The District Educational Officer was requested not to disburse any amounts to the petitioner for the education programmes. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.9.1997 and letter dated 30.12.1997 issued by the first respondent. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed trying to justify their actions. Elaborate reference is made to various acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner. Heard Sri Abhinand K.Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The grievance of the petitioner is not much against the order dated 16.9.1997. Though the P.I.A. was cancelled on administrative grounds, it was preceded by extensive correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. The ultimate cancellation did not by itself result in punitive action. Neither amount was directed to be forfeited nor the petitioner was directed to be black listed. On the other hand, the accounts were directed to be settled. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order dated 16.9.1997. At any rate the agency has worked itself out, inasmuch as it was for a limited period. Even while canceling the P.I.A. of the petitioner, the first respondent informed the District Educational Officer to blacklist the petitioner in the context of entrustment of works in the education department and not to release any Government funds. Though the District Collector happens to be an administrative head of the district, he was dealing with the petitioner in his capacity as Project Director of D.R.D.A. He did not impose any penalty against the petitioner as regards the works entrusted by the D.R.D.A. The performance of the petitioner in relation to the work entrusted by the District Educational Officer or other agencies has to be assessed by the concerned authorities. The District Collector cannot direct any other authority to blacklist the petitioner with regard to the works or activities which were not entrusted by him. It is for the concerned authority to assess the performance of the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of: (a) upholding the order dated 16.9.1997 issued by the first respondent, and (b) setting aside the letter dated 30.12.1997 addressed by the first respondent to the District Educational Officer, Khammam with an observation that the performance of the petitioner vis-à- vis the literacy programme entrusted to him shall be assessed on its own merits without reference to the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner as P.I.A. for implementation of watershed schemes. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 16.12.2008 Stp ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 16.12..2008 Stp