IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25077 of 2007 Between: 1 B.Laxmi Bai W/o. Ganganna Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 2 Gangubai W/o.Mukund Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 3 Laxmi W/o.Yadav Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 4 Padala Dayakar S/o.Ram Reddy Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 5 Avula Ramesh S/o. Narsing Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 6 Padala Bucchari S/o.Buchanna Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 7 Padala Sudam S/o.Buchiri Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 8 G.Ravi S/o.Ganapathi Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 9 Dekonda Dayakar S/o.Ramulu Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 10 R.Sudhakar S/o.Ramkishan Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 11 Raja Reddy S/o.Narsimulu Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 12 K.Arun Kumar S/o.Narsimlu Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 13 Garipelli Bhoomakka S/o.Shivanna Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 14 G.Narsing s/o.Lasmanna Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 15 Bavane Santosh S/o.Ganganna Resident of Maruguda village Jainath Mandal Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Manager, AP State Housing Corporation Limited, Adilabad 2 The Mandal Housing officer, Jainath Mandal Adilabad District ….. RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents in not releasing total sanctioned amount of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.3,200/- under employment guarantee scheme each to the petitioners even after completing constructions of their houses under " Indiramma Phase-I" Scheme as highly illegal, irregular against the principles of natural justice equity and fair play and unconstitutional and prays to direct the respondents herein to release the remaining payment of Rs.16,255/- as sanctioned under "Indiramma Phase-I" to the petitioners without any further delay. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the balance amounts sanctioned under the ‘Indiramma Phase-1” Scheme, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are the residents of Maruguda Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation and perused the material made available on record. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the beneficiaries under ‘Indiramma Rural Phase-I Scheme’ (for short ‘the Scheme’) as per which the beneficiaries are entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- out of which Rs.17,500/- is loan and Rs.7,000/- is subsidy and Rs.500/- is to be paid towards the share of the beneficiary. Even though the petitioners have completed the construction of their houses six months back, the respondents have released only a part of the sanctioned amount i.e. Rs.11,945/- and are not releasing the balance amount of Rs.16,255/-. In this regard, they have also made a representation in vein. Hence the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to release the balance amount. In support of their case, the filed the payment release order issued by the A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited as well as certain pass books. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents inter alia stating that the petitioners are not at all the beneficiaries under the Scheme and they are not entitled for any amount. Because of the irregularities committed by the staff members of the Housing Corporation, their names have been wrongly included in the beneficiaries list and the passbooks were released. On several occasions, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the explanation given by the respondents is not satisfactory for not releasing the balance amounts. Therefore, this Court on 19.3.2008 passed a detailed order directing the District Collector to conduct an enquiry into the claims of the petitioners after issuing notices to all the beneficiaries and also to conduct a detailed enquiry with reference to the role of the officers concerned including the District Manager and Mandal Housing Officers in including the names of the petitioners and to submit a report to this Court. Today, the report submitted by the District Collector/Executive Director dated 26.5.2008 is produced before this Court. According to the said report, taking the opportunity of relaxation given by the Government in Lr.No.3721/RH.1/2006 dated 26.10.2006, the concerned MHO & MIC have included the names of the 15 petitioners herein whose houses were already constructed long back and released the payments directly upto roof level. As per the guidelines of the scheme, stage wise payments are to be made to the beneficiaries duly taking the photographs of each stage but in the instant case the amounts have been released directly upto roof level stage. Ultimately it is stated that the MPDO, MIC and the Village Secretary of Jainath Village are responsible for including the names of the petitioners even though they are not entitled for the benefit under the scheme and the amounts released to the petitioners is proposed for recovery from the concerned officers involved in making payments. In view of the above report, it is clear that the petitioners are not the beneficiaries under the Scheme and are not entitled for any amounts. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. In view of the statement made by the District Collector in the report submitted to the Court that they are going to recover the amounts paid to the petitioners from the officers who are responsible for inclusion of their names in the beneficiaries list and for payment thereof, I see no reason to pass any further orders on that count in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.10.06.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Manager, AP State Housing Corporation Limited, Adilabad 2 The Mandal Housing officer, Jainath Mandal Adilabad District 3 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 4 2CD copies