HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.24455 OF 1997 Dt.23.7.2010 Between: Goli Vijaya Kumari and others ..Petitioners And The District Collector-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, East Godavari at Kakinada and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.24455 OF 1997 ORDER: Petitioners ten in number were all residents of Venkatayapalem Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, filed this writ petition seeking mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in sanctioning various schemes like milch cattle, sheep unit, vegetable vending, chicken business, fish business etc., to various beneficiaries of Venkatayapalem Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District and forwarding the same to the 5th respondent for release of money and distribution without making any enquiry about the eligibility of the beneficiaries, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to follow the procedure envisaged under law and the guidelines issued under I.R.D.P. programme in selecting the eligible beneficiaries. It is the case of the petitioners that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, 2nd respondent herein, has to identify cluster villages in the mandal which are backward for their development and conduct a survey to identify the economically poor having inclination to work and deserve encouragement. The eligible beneficiaries will have to be identified basing on the survey whenever any scheme is launched. The Project Director, D.R.D.A., Kakinada, 3rd respondent herein has to intimate the nature of the scheme to be launched to the 2nd respondent, who in turn notify to all the villages in the Mandal inviting applications from eligible persons. The 2nd respondent has to convene Gramsabha in each of the villages to identify the beneficiaries by intimating the same to the Sarpanch and in the Gramsabha alone the applications of the villagers have to be considered. The 2nd respondent has to prepare a list of beneficiaries and forward the same to the Project Director, D.R.D.A. and the Scheduled Caste Finance Corporation for release of subsidy, margin money and term loan on the beneficiaries depositing their contribution. The 5th respondent herein, the Nazaruddin Association for Social Awareness, Tuni, which is a voluntary organization and who does not have any activity in the said Mandal is not at all any acquaintance with the villagers seems to have prepared a list of beneficiaries. It is the case of the petitioners that the list prepared by the 5th respondent is not basing on true and legal facts and several bogus names were also included. It is stated that the local M.L.A also made representation pointing out the irregularities and therefore it is the case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent has no role to play in selecting the beneficiaries. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent Project Director, D.R.D.A., stating that the District Collector and Chairman, S.C. Co-operative Society Limited, Kakinada has issued orders for sanction of various schemes as per the funding pattern. According to which, 20% margin money has to be contributed by the S.C. Society, 15% loan from FMF (SCs), 50% is by D.R.D.A. subsidy and 15% loan from the 5th respondent. Thus, the total amount of Rs.14,96,000/- was available for the beneficiaries. Accordingly, the Project Director, D.R.D.A. is contributing its share of 50% amounting to Rs.6,55,000/- and kept the same at the disposal of the Executive Director, S.C. Society, Kakinada, in order to ground the scheme. The Executive Director, S.C. Society, Kakinada is the authority to look into the eligibility of the beneficiaries and also to ground the said scheme. Since the Project Director, D.R.D.A. has already sanctioned the subsidy and placed the said amount at the disposal of the Executive Director, S.C. Society, Kakinada, on 30.4.1997 itself, it is stated that the interim order passed by this Court on 25.9.1997 has become infructuous. The 4th respondent Scheduled Caste Finance Corporation also filed a counter affidavit stating that originally 110 beneficiaries have been identified and basing on the representation the list was verified by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and the officers of the Scheduled Caste Finance Corporation and the cases of 85 genuine beneficiaries were only considered deleting the other members. Thus, it is stated that the contention of the petitioner that the cases of bogus members were also considered is denied. It is stated that the procedure to be followed for selection of beneficiaries is applicable for regular IRDP/SC Action Plan, wherein a Gramasabha is required to be conducted by issuing necessary notification. It is stated that it being a special scheme formulated by the Collector with the help of voluntary organization and on representation of the local M.L.A the cases of genuine beneficiaries alone have been considered. It is further stated that the money under the programme was already released to the beneficiaries and they have utilized the same and they are also repaying the money back. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that as the scheme was already worked out and the money was also released and in fact beneficiaries have been repaying the amount and for the said counter filed by the 4th respondent, no reply is filed, the grievance of the petitioners does not survive. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _________________ nV.ESWARAIAH, J. 23.7.2010 kpr