IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 974 OF 2007 Between: Devarapalli Habitation Water & Sanitation Committee, Rep. By its President Sri G.Subbarao. … Petitioner AND The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District and three others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : Devarapalli Habitation Water & Sanitation Committee, Devarapalli Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its President G.Subba Rao, filed this writ petition assailing the proceeding dated 04-01-2007 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District. By the said proceeding, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Parchur, informed the Superintending Engineer (PR), RWS (Project) Circle, Ongole, Prakasam District, that he had conducted a Grama Sabha on 04-01-2007 at the Gram Panchayat Office, Devarapalli, and that a resolution had been passed in the said Grama Sabha by 2/3rd majority of the water users to dissolve the existing Pilot Project Committee and to form a new one immediately. He further stated that a new committee had been elected by the water users in the said Grama Sabha and they had prepared a Bye-law as per Rules and Regulations, which was submitted therewith for perusal. 2. This Court, by order dated 22-01-2007, granted interim suspension of the proceeding dated 04-01-2007. 3. The matter arises in the context of implementation of the ‘Sector Reforms Programme in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Pilot Districts of Andhra Pradesh’. This scheme was formulated under G.O.Ms.No.88, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RWS.II) Department, dated 15-03-2001. Under this scheme, the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, allocated 20% of its annual outlay for promoting sector reforms in rural water supply and sanitation by institutionalizing community participation in terms of the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001. Constitution of such institutions at different levels was provided therein for implementing this scheme. The State Water and Sanitation Mission at the State Level, the District Water and Sanitation Mission at the District level, the Mandal Level Water and Sanitation Committees at the Mandal level and the Gram Panchayat Level Water and Sanitation Committees at the grass-root level were to be in charge of implementing this scheme. Clause 24 of G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001 provided for the constitution of a Habitation Level Water & Sanitation Group(HWSG) in each grass-root unit. The HWSG was to be a registered society comprising one adult member from each user household from the habitation(s) from the scheme area and was to be governed by the MOU and byelaws. Its executive arm was named as the Habitation Level Water & Sanitation Committee (HWSC). Clause 25 of G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001 deals with the constitution of the HWSC which was to perform the day to day functions of the H.W.S.G. It has to comprise 7 to 11 members elected by the H.W.S.G, of whom at least 50% should be women and at least 22% should be from SC/ST families. This committee was to have a Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. The Ward member concerned was also to be a member of the Committee. 4. Annexure-II appended to the said G.O stipulates the bye-laws to be followed by the H.W.S.G. Bye-law No.7 deals with the General Body of the HWSG and its functions. Bye-law No.7.8.1 provides that the General Body shall elect the executive committee of 7 to 11 members including 3 office bearers with at least 90% attendance. Bye-law Nos. 7.8.13, 7.8.14 and 7.8.15 deal with the power of the General Body to remove any member(s) from the H.W.S.C. or to dissolve the entire H.W.S.C. They read as under: “7.8.13 The General Body can remove any member(s) including office bearers of the Committee or dissolve the entire committee for non-performance or acts of misconduct, which may lead to non-attainment of the objectives of the Group and/or result in misuse of funds besides prosecuting them for recovery under RR Act. A resolution to this effect shall be placed in the General Body with the signature of at least 1/3 members of the group and adopted by the General Body with a 2/3 of the majority of the members. The vacancies thus arising in the Committee will be filled in accordance with the procedures as in the normal course. Members of the committee who have been removed as above are ineligible for reselection: 7.8.14 When a resolution for the removal of the entire Committee is moved, extra ordinary general body meeting shall be convened with a notice period of at least 7 days. In extreme cases where such election could not be conducted, the GP can appoint a caretaker committee from among members of the Group; and 7.8.15 The General Body of the Group shall elect through open voting, the following members of the Executive Committee. I. Chairperson; II. Secretary; III. Treasurer (woman); and IV. 4 to 8 members.” 5. This, then, is the legal environment in which the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 15-03-2001 is to be implemented and monitored. In the present case, the petitioner H.W.S.C was apparently dissolved by holding a Grama Sabha as is evident from a reading of the impugned proceeding dated 01-04-2007. The procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001 was clearly given a go-by. There is no dispute as to this aspect. Whatever may be the irregularities committed by the petitioner committee, once the administrative instructions issued under G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001 stipulated a particular procedure to deal with the same, it was not open to the authorities to deviate from such procedure and tailor a new procedure to suit their needs. The sequence of events, as setforth in the counters filed by the various contesting respondents, demonstrates that the authorities were not even aware of the procedure stipulated in G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03- 2001. It is stated that the newly elected committee, which came on record in the present writ petition as the fourth respondent, got itself registered under the Societies Registration Act with registration No. 9/2007. This is not a requirement borne out by G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03- 2001. It is only the H.W.S.G. which requires to be registered under the said Act and not the H.W.S.C, which is only the executive arm of the H.W.S.G. This indicates the level of understanding or rather, the lack of it, on the part of the authorities in implementing the scheme. The impugned proceeding dated 04-01-2007 reflecting this sad state of affairs in the implementation of a National Scheme therefore cannot be sustained. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing the respondent authorities, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as it pertains to constitution of a committee under a scheme not relatable to a statute. He placed reliance on C.Dayakar Reddy and others v. District Collector-cum-Chairman, The Watershed Development Committee, Mahaboobnagar and others[1] in support of his contention. The said case dealt with the constitution of Water Shed Associations under a scheme. This Court found, upon examination, that no rules were framed either by the State Government or by the Central Government prescribing the mode and method of constitution of such associations. The scheme was in the form of a bulletin for information of the general public. This Court further found that the guidelines did not create any corresponding rights in any of the villagers or beneficiaries of the scheme nor did the scheme create any obligation or impose any duties. It was only a developmental scheme intended for better management and utilization of sub-soil water resources. It was in these circumstances that this Court concluded that a writ petition would not lie in connection with the constitution of such Water Shed Associations under the said scheme. Facts in the case on hand are altogether different. The scheme formulated under G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001 was floated by the Ministry of Rural Development, a Government of India with a substantial budget of 20% of its annual outlay. Thus, taxpayers money was to be utilized for implementation of the scheme. The Rules formulated under the G.O, being administrative instructions created rights in the user households which were to be benefitted by the implementation of this scheme. Once these administrative instructions provided for how the scheme was to be monitored and implemented, any violation of the procedure stipulated therein would invariably be amenable to a public law remedy. This writ petition cannot therefore be said to be not maintainable. The contention of the learned Government Pleader in this regard is therefore rejected. 7. In that view of the matter, the procedure followed by the authorities in dissolving the petitioner Committee, being in violation of that prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001, cannot be countenanced. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 04-01-2007 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Parchur, Prakasam District, and the consequential actions based thereon. This shall however not preclude the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms. No.88 dated 15-03-2001 being followed for the purpose of removal/dissolution of the H.W.S.C, Deverapalli, if any ground warranting such action is made out. 9. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 24-02-2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.974 OF 2007 February 24, 2011 [1] 1998 (4) ALD 705