IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:15659 of 2000 Between: M/s. Arsha Bharathi Educational Society-I.T.I., Rep. by its Correspondent Mr.S.Surya Rao, S/o. Late Sri Ranganadha Swamy Regd.No.321/81, R/o. Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Rural Development-cum-Chairman of Sub-Committeee Relief Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Panchayatraj & Rural Development Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector and Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Regional Deputy Director (APP), Department of Employment & Training, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MOHD. GHOUSE PASHA FOR MR.G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1&2: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.4,16,996/- in pursuance of the sanctioned Scheme contained in G.O.Ms.No.418, dated 07.10.1996 and Memo No.11504/RD.I(A)/95, dated 07.11.1996 issued by respondent No.2, in favour of the petitioner institution and sponsor the students. Heard Sri Mohd. Ghouse Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner institution and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the record. In the aﬃdavit, it is averred that under “Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment” (TRYSEM) Scheme intended for imparting vocational training in professional courses through the State Government by the Industrial Training Institutions, the Government of India released a sum of 156.40 lacs towards it’s share and the State Government also released it’s share of 295.312 lacs. The said amount was apportioned among all the Districts by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.418, dated 07.10.1996. This was followed by Memo, dated 07.11.1996 issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development whereby he directed the Project Directors of District Rural Development Agencies to collect the proposals for establishment of mini I.T.Is run by the Non-Governmental Organisations. The petitioner institution was one among the institutions selected to establish a mini ITI. It is pleaded that on 07.11.1996, respondent No.2 sanctioned a sum of Rs.12.56 lacs, out of which, the petitioner institution was sanctioned a sum of Rs.6.28 lacs and respondent No.3 gave administrative sanction for Rs.2,11,504/- in it’s favour. It is further averred that after following the procedure prescribed by the Government, the petitioner institution purchased the machinery in September, 1998 by calling for tenders and as the said machinery was not suﬃcient to impart training, there is a necessity of acquiring further machinery, for which, the balance amount of Rs.4,16,996/- is required to be released by the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner institution is that the respondents have not been releasing the said amount. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.4, the plea of the petitioner institution that it was one of the institutions selected under the above-mentioned Scheme and was sanctioned the sum of Rs.6.28 lacs for the above- mentioned purpose was admitted. He also admitted the fact of releasing the sanctioned sum to the extent of Rs.2,11,504/- . He had, however, averred that while releasing the said sum, conditions were imposed to check the quality of Tools and Equipment with the samples and speciﬁcations produced at the time of quotations; that after procuring the entire equipment, the petitioner institution was requested to inform the Chairman and Deputy Director (APP), Regional Oﬃce, Visakhapatnam for the purpose of cross-checking and also to send the Utilization Certiﬁcate within 30 days from the date of release of funds, namely, 03.04.1998; that the petitioner institution failed to fulﬁll the stipulated conditions laid down in the said order, in spite of repeated reminders of the Regional Deputy Director (APP), Employment and Training, Visakhapatnam, and that after ﬁling of the present writ petition, the petitioner institution sent Utilization Certiﬁcate on 27.09.2000 without furnishing the voucher-wise particulars along with copies of bills, by merely saying that the amount was utilized. It is pointed out that in the said certiﬁcate, there was no mention about the date of purchase of Tools and Equipment, which was the primary condition for release of the balance sanctioned amount. It is further averred that the petitioner institution completed the procurement of machinery and equipment from the local ﬁrms and spent money in September, 1998 and thereafter, it approached respondent No.5 to release the balance amount; that the General Manager, District Industries Centre, who is the Member of the Purchase Committee, suggested that as per the Financial Code, all purchases value of the above Rs.5,000/- had to be made only through open tenders and the Committee issued tender notice in the leading newspapers and that from 01.04.1999, the TRYSEM Scheme including Integrated Rural Development Programme, Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas etc., were merged into newly launched Swarnajayanthi Gram Swrozgar Yojana Programme and, therefore, DRDA, Visakhapatnam could not consider the issue of release of further funds. In the reply aﬃdavit, the petitioner institution denied the above-mentioned allegations. From the respective pleadings, it is evident that while the petitioner institution claims that it has complied with all the conditions for release of the balance amount, the respondents have taken the speciﬁc stand that the petitioner institution has not complied with the essential conditions, which are required for release of the balance amount. While exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to decide these disputed facts. Unless the petitioner institution complied with all the conditions including submission of proper evidence of purchase of equipment by following the prescribed procedure, it cannot claim payment of the balance amount. The right of the petitioner institution to receive the balance amount is therefore, coupled with it’s duty and obligation to comply with all the conditions necessary for release of the balance amount. Therefore, unless the petitioner institution succeeds in establishing that it has complied with all the conditions, no relief can be granted in it’s favour. As noted above, in view of the stand taken by the respondents disputing the claim of the petitioner institution that it has followed the procedure, it is not possible for this Court to decide the said factual dispute. The proper and appropriate remedy for the petitioner institution is to approach the Civil Court and in the event it is able to establish that it has followed the prescribed procedure and complied with all the conditions for release of the balance amount, it can make a claim against the respondents seeking the said relief. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni