IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9357 of 2008 Between: Narmada Devi Foundation, SOC.No.10 of 2004, Sirpur-T, District Adilabad. Represented by its General Secretary Vajjala Dattu, S/o. Vajjala Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 35 years, R/o. H.No.5-86, Downal Area, Sirpur (T) Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Chairman District Level Committee, Adilabad District. 2 The Joint Director of Agriculture, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHAMMED RAHAIL AHMED Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in refusing to accept the forms of the Commodity Interest Groups submitted by the petitioner-Organisation for the Mandals allotted to it, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, void and against the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001, and a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). It alleges that on 26-03-2008, respondent No.2 informed that it has been chosen to work for the farmers and to organize Commodity Interest Groups, and it was asked to submit an application for completion of further formalities. It further averred that it submitted an application on 27-03-2008 giving consent to work and to be appointed as organizer NGO; that respondent No.2 sent letter dated 01-04-2008 to the petitioner informing it to attend the meeting convened on 10-04-2008 at 11 a.m., for allotment of villages and; that after the meeting ended, the authorities gave forms to make Commodity Interest Groups and directed the petitioner to work in three Mandals viz., Sirpur-T Mandal, Kagaznagar Mandal and Dahe Gaon Mandal of Kagajnagar Division, while assuring that formal allotment letter will be given later. The petitioner claimed that acting on the assurance given by the respondents, it started the work, and when the petitioner went to submit its first report on 17-04- 2008, the respondents refused to accept the same and stated that the work of the petitioner has been entrusted to another person. Questioning this action, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Heard Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The claim of the petitioner that it was entrusted with the work and that it commenced the work in pursuance of such entrustment, is not supported by any material whatsoever. A perusal of letter dated 01-04-2008 filed by the petitioner shows that respondent No.2 addressed the said letter to 13 Organizations including the petitioner, stating that for formation of Commodity Interest Groups and allotment of Villages/Mandals among the Non- Governmental Organizations, a meeting is fixed on 10-04-2008 at 11 a.m., in the chamber of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Adilabad. This letter itself would falsify the plea of the petitioner that it was already chosen for being entrusted with the work of organizing the Commodity Interest Groups. In the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner to the effect that after entrustment of the work to it, the same was entrusted to another Organisation by denying that work to the petitioner, it cannot claim that any of its rights have been taken away by the respondents without following due process of law. At the hearing, when the Court asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether entrustment of work involves payment of any remuneration to the petitioner, he replied that it is a voluntary work and no firm remuneration is paid to the NGOs. According to the learned Counsel, the Organization is paid only honorarium apart from the respondents meeting the expenditure. Unless the petitioner is able to show that entrustment of work constitutes distribution of public largesse, it is not entitled to invoke the public law remedy of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The activity of entrustment of the work of the nature with which this Writ Petition is concerned is neither a statutory duty of the respondents nor it involves distribution of largesse. Unless the work in question falls in either of the above categories, this Court will not interfere in the discretion exercised by the respondents in entrusting such a work. The petitioner failed to establish any right to claim work or that any of its legal or fundamental rights are violated by the respondents. The petitioner also failed to plead as to which is the agency that has been entrusted with the work, except using a vague expression in its affidavit that the work, which was purported to have been entrusted to the petitioner earlier, was entrusted to “another person”. This Court would not be inclined to entertain Writ Petitions with such vague averments. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.12350 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25-04-2008 Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o LUR