IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSADY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.22113 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Nallapalli Appala Raju and others …PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner and others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.22113 OF 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.1, viz., the Commissioner, Srikakulam Municipality, not to entrust the lifting of garbage in ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ Divisions of Srikakulam Municipality in favour of third parties and to continue the petitioners to execute the said work in pursuance of the agreement, dated 22.02.2005, said to have been entered into between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 3. 2. The petitioners claim that they belong to Relli Community, a Scheduled Caste. They say that in pursuance of the policy of the Central Government prohibiting manual scavenging work, the State Government has taken up rehabilitation schemes for manual scavengers and their dependants. The petitioners are identified as beneficiaries for financial assistance through respondent Nos.2 and 3. Under the scheme, the petitioners purchased Tippers and the same were attached to the Municipality for lifting garbage in the ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ Divisions. Initially an agreement was entered into on 24.04.2002, which was later replaced by a revised agreement, dated 22.02.2005, between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 3. It is said that in pursuance of these agreements, the petitioners were executing the work and eking out their livelihood. In the meanwhile, the Municipal Council appears to have adopted a resolution C.R.No.2/225, dated 29.03.2006, resolving to cancel the agreement with the petitioners and to call for tenders for the execution of the work. It appears that the said resolution was also communicated to respondent No.3. Since the petitioners were already executing the work and as the cancellation of the agreement affects their livelihood, they filed this Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri G. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri S. Nageswara Reddy learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners being the members of Scheduled Caste Community doing the scavenging work, were accommodated by providing financial assistance through respondent Nos.2 and 3 and were also entrusted with the work of lifting garbage. Even though respondent No.1 has stated that the Municipal Council cancelled the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the Municipality, it does not appear that such cancellation was made after putting the petitioners on notice. Apparently, the petitioners were given financial assistance as rehabilitative measure. Although it is stated that the work was sought to be entrusted by calling for tenders, respondent No.1 in his counter clearly stated that the work was not entrusted to new contractors who were awarded the work pursuant to Resolution No.01/406, dated 29.09.2006. Having regard to the scheme under which the petitioners are said to be the beneficiaries and the nature of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 3, the petitioners ought to have been put on notice before cancelling the agreement. 5. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider whether the work can be entrusted to the petitioners and after putting them on notice take appropriate decision thereon as early as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J March 10, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.22113 OF 2006 March 10, 2011