THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.11766 of 2008 Date : 26-11-2009 Between : K.Issaku Raju and others .. Petitioners And District Collector/Chairman, West Godavari District, S.C. Service Coop. Society Limited, Eluru and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.11766 of 2008 ORDER: 1. Heard the Counsel. 2. This Court issued notice before admission on 11-6-2008 and issued rule nisi on 30-6-2008. Respondents 3 and 6 filed counter affidavits. 3. Heard the Counsel on record. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the amounts under the Special Package Programme for Rehabilitation of Kolleru habitants to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated by the writ petitioners that they are the members of Ambedkar Harijana Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Sanjay Gandhi Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Sri Rama Vaddies Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Sri Krishna Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Chinimallipadu. The said Societies had been encouraged by the Government to dig fish tanks in Kolleru area by providing funds to eke out their livelihood. It is further stated that in the year 2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued orders for removal of Fish tanks in Kolleru area and accordingly the authorities had destroyed the fish tanks of the Co-operative Societies along with those belonging to some private individuals. There are about 140 Members in the aforesaid four Societies. In the year 2006, the 5th respondent had identified 140 Members and had recommended to the 1st respondent for providing rehabilitation package by providing alternative occupations by giving economic support. On consideration of the same, the 1st respondent had evolved the Special Package Programme or Rehabilitation of Kolleru habitants. As per the said Package, 50% subsidy will be provided by the 1st respondent subject to a maximum of Rs.25,000/- and 10% had to be brought by the beneficiary and another 40% had to be given by the Bank as loan. The total amount of the package to each of the beneficiary is working out to Rs.50,000/- so that he/she can start alternative occupation to eke out livelihood. The 6th respondent had given consent letter to the Mandal Parishad Officer, Akiveedu for sanction of financial assistance to the rehabilitants of Kolleru Operation affected people. In implementation of the said Scheme, the 1st respondent appears to have deposited a sum of Rs.75 lakhs with the 6th respondent. 6. It is also further stated that in spite of preparation of list of 140 Members of the said Societies as eligible beneficiaries by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent had not taken appropriate action. In such circumstances the writ petitioners had submitted a representation on 13-2-2008 to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), West Godavari, Eluru. The Legal Services Authority had taken up the matter as VLC No.88/2008 and had issued notices to the respondents. The writ petitioners also submitted a representation on 17-2-2008 to the Social Justice Forum, Public Grievances Settlements Centre, Akiveedu. The Convenor of the said Forum had submitted a detailed representation on 17-2-2008 to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent endorsed the matter to the 3rd respondent on 18-2-2008 to enquire and examine the possibility of considering the request of the petitioners. 7. It is further stated that all the parties appeared before the DLSA on19-2-2008 and the matter was posted to 27-2-2008 for settlement. After issuance of the notices by the said DLSA, the 4th respondent had sent Lr.Rc.No.9/08/A2 dated 18-2-2008 to the DLSA informing that on the representation of the petitioners, information was kept in the notice board of the Gram Panchayat requiring the eligible beneficiaries to appear for documentation on 21-2-2008 that the applications of 35 eligible beneficiaries were sent by her to the 6th respondent for sanction of loan and consent, that on receipt of consent from the 6th respondent, the applications will be sent to the 3rd respondent for taking appropriate action and that the documentation of the eligible beneficiaries that may appear before her on 21-2-2008 will also be completed early. She had also informed that 171 beneficiaries had been selected in the Gram Panchayat area and a sum of Rs.67.90 lakhs had been sanctioned. 8. It is also further stated that the 3rd respondent had also sent Lr.Roc.No.A11/1195/DRDA/06 dated 26-2-2008 to the DLSA referring to certain correspondence and informing that on 21-2-2008 a team was sent from his office for documentation under Kolleru Rehabilitation Programme, that on enquiries made with 30 individuals, 21 were identified as eligible beneficiaries and accordingly documentation was completed and sent to the office of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had sent letter dated 22-2-2008 stating that proposals were being sent to the 6th respondent for giving consent. The 6th respondent had required D.C.C. approval or letter from the office of the 3rd respondent or sanction of the loan. He had also sent letter dated 25-2-2008 to the 6th respondent enclosing the letter from the 3rd respondent for sanction of loan. If the proposals are sent along with the consent letter of the 6th respondent through the 4th respondent to the concerned offices (B.C. Corporation, S.C. Corporation) by further action will be taken. On 27-2-2008 on consideration of the material, the DLSA had closed the matter as the cause was completed by the Revenue Authorities. 9. Further it is stated that the 1st respondent had issued proceedings Rc.No.77/2005/SW-2 dated 12-4-2008 stating that the 6th respondent had given consent for S.C. beneficiaries of Kolleru rehabilitants as per the Schemes opted by the S.C. beneficiaries in the above pattern. The 4th respondent had submitted proposals along with the consent letter of the 6th respondent for sanction of financial assistance to the rehabilitants of Kolleru Operation affected people and according sanction for the 45 proposals with total outlay of Rs.24,10,000/- and 10% contribution was to be paid by the beneficiaries to the 6th respondent. It was also further directed that the 3rd respondent to release the amount towards the above subsidy to the 6th respondent for grounding the units. In the list enclosed to the said proceedings, some of the names of the petitioner figure in. The 1st respondent had also issued similar proceedings Rc.No.A/256/06 dated 31-3-2008 enclosing another list of B.C. beneficiaries in which some of the other names of the petitioners were also shown. 10. It is stated that in spite of sanction of funds and remitting the same to the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent is not releasing the amount to the petitioners in spite of their approaching the Bank expressing their readiness to remit 10% of the contribution amount. Bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent the above fact, the Convenor of the above Forum had also sent a FAX on 2-5-2008 without any avail. The petitioners came to understand that the 6th respondent had already released the subsidy part of the amount sanctioned by the 1st respondent even without receiving the 10% contribution amount from the beneficiaries to some of the individuals to whom the package is extended after crediting the loan part of the package to the credit of their account. 11. It is also further stated that the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing the amount under the above package is illegal and arbitrary. When some of the beneficiaries were already released the subsidy part of the amount by crediting the loan part of the package to the credit of their account, the petitioners ought to have been extended the same consideration by the respondents. The petitioners are prepared to remit the 6th respondent their contribution, but the 6th respondent did not receive. The impugned action of the respondents is discriminatory. The petitioners had lost their source of livelihood due to destruction of the fish tanks by the authorities. When the 1st respondent had provided the rehabilitation package and remitted the subsidy amount, there is no reason for withholding the same by the 6th respondent. The families of the petitioners are virtually thrown on the streets and due to non-release of the amount, the petitioners are put to grave hardship. On account of non-release of the amounts already sanctioned, they are not in a position to get benefit of the package. The impugned action of the respondents is clearly discriminatory, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Part III of the Constitution of India and unless appropriate interim orders are granted, the petitioners will be put to grave prejudice and irreparable loss. Thus the impugned order of the respondents in not releasing the amount under the above package is being challenged as illegal and arbitrary. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that Chinamillipadu village in Akiveedu Mandal is a Kolleru belt area which comes under ‘Wild Life Sanctuary’ as per G.O.Ms.No.120 dated 4-10-1999. The Chinamillipadu villagers had encroached Government land of Chinnamillipadu and Siddapuram villages of Akividu Mandal and dug illegal fish tanks and raised pisci culture in the Government Assigned and Zeroyat lands as the fish tanks dug by the villagers who are the members of the Co-operative Farming Society. The concerned Revenue Divisional Officers in unsurvey and assigned lands had cancelled the D-Form pattas and leases etc. One Pranaya Vyagreh, representative of Kolleru Protection Committee had filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court for protection of Kolleru lake. The Supreme Court was pleased to appoint the Central Empowerment Committee to enquire into the matter. The Central Empowerment Committee who visited the sanctuary area Mandals submitted a report to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to demolish the illegal fish tanks in the year 2006. Accordingly the Government demolished the fish tanks in Government Assigned and Zeroyat lands in the Wild Life Sanctuary villages located in 7 Mandals of the West Godavari District. Later, the Government had proposed to sanction loans to the victims whose fish tanks are affected under Kolleru operation. As per the instructions of the Government, Committee have formed consisting of Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), M.P.D.O. Fisheries officials, D.R.D.A. officials, Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch concerned and identified affected Kolleru people through S.H.G. The beneficiaries of Chinamillipadu village in Akividu Mandal had been identified and loans had been sanctioned through State Bank of India, Siddapuram village in Akividu Mandal under Special Kolleru Package Programme @ 50% subsidy from Kolleru funds (subject to maximum of Rs.25,000/- - 10% beneficiary contribution and 40% Bank loan). 13. It is also further stated that the Fisheries Development Officer, Bhimavaram and other Village Committee Members had identified 140 Members in S.C. and B.C. category and submitted report to the D.R.D.A. office, Eluru through the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Akividu on rehabilitation measures vide letter No.A2/16/2006 dated 26-2-2008. It is further stated that one Katikala Issack Raju and others had filed a representation before the District Legal Service Authorities, Eluru alleging that they did not get any rehabilitation measures and requested to do justice in the matter. The Branch manager, State Bank of India, Siddapuram, MPDO Akividu and the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Eluru were impleaded as respondents in the matter. The District Legal Services Authorities, Eluru had called for a report along with connected records. Subsequently, a detailed report was submitted by the then Project Director, D.R.D.A., Eluru vide Roc.A1-1195/2006 D.R.D.A. dated 18-2-2008 stating that the petitioner, Katikala Issack Raju and Ghantasala Anthervedi were referred for getting documentation for sanction of loan during the enquiry by the Community Coordinator, Akividu and there is no objection to get documentation for those two persons. The Assistant Project Officer, DRDA, Eluru and Community Coordinator, Akividu who enquired the list of Society members for sanction of loan had submitted eligible list for 21 members and completed the documentation out of 30 members and the said matter was dismissed. Moreover, the petitioners had filed a representation dated 17-2-2008 before the Social Justice Forum, Public Grievances Settlements Centre, Akividu and the same was endorsed to the Project Director, DRDA, Eluru to enquire and examine the possibility of considering the request of the petitioners for 140 Society members. The Mandal Development Officer, Akividu in her letter No.A2.56/2007 dated 28-3- 2008 had recommended Executive Director, B.C. Corporation, West Godavari District, Eluru for sanction of loan to 21 B.C. community Society Members. After perusal of the proposals, the District Collector/Chairman, S.C. Services Co-operative Society, Eluru and B.C. Services Co-operative Society Limited, Eluru had issued loan sanction orders including subsidy separately vide Rc.No.77/2005/SW- 2 dated 12-4-2008 and Roc.A-259/2006 dated 31-3-2008 respectively after approval of the District Coordinate Committee and obtaining consent of the State Bank of India, Siddapuram to M.P.D.O. Akividu. The S.C. Co-operative Society Limited, Eluru had accepted the proposals for 45 S.C. Society Members with total outlay of Rs.24.10 lakhs including 50% subsidy from Kolleru funds and also the B.C. Service Co-operative Society Limited, Eluru had sanctioned proposals for 21 B.C. It is further stated that the Community Society Members of the village with subsidy amount of Rs.3.85 lakhs to ground the units in Chinamillipadu village. The Collector/Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Eluru released an amount of Rs.23.10 lakhs in addition to the earlier released amount to the State Bank of India, Siddapuram for grounding the units. The amount of Rs.23.10 lakhs was sent to S.B.I., Siddapuram by means of Demand Drafts. The Branch Manager, S.B.I., Siddapuram had taken action to ground the units for the released amounts both from S.C. and B.C. Corporations. 14. In reply to the averments made in the paras 2 to 9 of affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the Societies had obtained pattas/leases and dug illegal fish tanks person Kolleru areas and the said pattas/leases were cancelled by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur. As per the directions of the Supreme Court all the illegal fish tanks, assigned and Zeroyat lands situated in sanctuary area of Chinamillipadu and Kolleru area were demolished in the year 2006. The Fishermen Development Officer, Bhimavaram along with other officials has identified 140 Social Members in Chinamillipadu village. 15. Further it is stated that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Akividu had submitted proposals for 45 S.C. Society Members to the Executive Director, S.C. Services Co-operative Limited, Eluru vide Lr.No.A2/56/2007 dated 28-3-2008 for sanction of loan. Accordingly the Collector/Chairman, West Godavari District S.C. Service Co-operative Society Limited, Eluru had issued sanction orders for 45 S.C. Members of Chinamillipadu village with outlay of Rs.24.10 lakhs including the subsidy amount of Rs.11.25 lakhs for grounding the units. Similarly, the B.C. Service Co-operative Society Limited, Eluru had issued sanction orders for 21 B.C. Society Members with outlay of 7.70 lakhs including subsidy amount of Rs.3.85 lakhs. The 1st respondent/District Collector, W.G. District in Lr.No.A- 11/724/DRDA/2006 dated 21-5-2008 had issued orders to release subsidy amount of Rs.23.10 lakhs in addition to the earlier release amount of Rs.56.55 lakhs to the State Bank of India, Siddapuram by means of demand drafts. No amount is due for release by the 3rd respondent under Special Kolleru Package Programme to the people affected in Kolleru operations. After approval DCC sanction orders were issued to 21 beneficiaries and necessary subsidy amount was released to the Bank. 16. Further it is also stated that the 6th respondent is taking action to complete grounding of the sanctioned units including the units of the petitioners. There are no lapses of any kind in taking action in that regard. The respondents are taking necessary steps from time to time to sanction or release funds under the Special Package Programme for Rehabilitation of Kolleru in habitants through the State Bank of India, Siddapuram. 17. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent, almost similar averments had been made. It is averred in para-5 of the counter affidavit that the following units were grounded after depositing the beneficiary contribution with the 6th respondent : Year No. of Units Limit Beneficiary Contribution Subsidy 2007-08 71 21,80,000/- 2,18,000 10,70,000/- 2008-09 166 67,30,000/- 6,73,000/- 33,95,000/- Further it is stated that the allegation of the petitioners that the 1st respondent had provided rehabilitation package and remitted the subsidy amount is not correct. The 6th respondent had not received the subsidy amount as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners main grievance is against the respondents 1 to 5 in implementing the special package programme for rehabilitation of Kolleru habitants. Therefore the 6th respondent had only a limited role of disbursement under the said Package announced by the 1st respondent. 18. Further specific stand had been taken by the 6th respondent in para-6 of the counter affidavit that the 6th respondent received Rs.23 lakhs on 24-6-2008 for implementation of the said scheme and steps are being initiated by the 6th respondent for implementing the scheme as per the norms provided under the Special Package Programme for Rehabilitation of Kolleru habitants and also the norms of the 6th respondent-Bank. 19. It is no doubt true that in both the counter affidavits, the dismissal of the Writ Petition had been prayed for. But however, in both the counter affidavits, releasing of a sum of Rs.23 lakhs, this aspect is not put into serious controversy and this fact in fact had been admitted. 20. It is stated that the petitioners had also deposited amounts as required by the 6th respondent-Bank and certain subsequent events also had been brought to the notice of this Court. 21. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the other merits and demerits or the modalities to be worked out in this regard. But however, in the light of the specific stand taken by the 6th respondent in particular, in para-6 of the counter affidavit, the 6th respondent-Bank already had received Rs.23 lakhs on 24-6-2008 for implementation of the scheme and steps are being initiated for implementation of the scheme as per the norms provided under the Special Package Programme for Rehabilitation of Kolleru habitants and also the norms of the 6th respondent-Bank, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition be disposed of directing the respondents to see that the scheme is implemented in the light of receiving of Rs.23 lakhs in this regard in accordance with Law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 26-11-2009 AM