THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.16987 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner claims that it has been entrusted with the work of establishment of Non-formal Education centers in various parts of the district. According to the petitioner, the funds to the extent of 50% for the academic year 1996-97 were released and balance was withheld. It is also stated that though the centers continued up to 1999, the funds for the corresponding period were not released. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, a detailed account is made as to the manner in which the petitioner was entrusted with the work of establishment of centers. Petitioner states that though its performance was satisfactory, the amounts were withheld on the recommendations made by the District Colelctor, Khammam, in his capacity as Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, (for short ‘ D.R.D.A.’) The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that on verification by the concerned authorities, the performance of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and that several centres were not opened at all. It is also stated that the agencies of the Central Government which arranged funds took exception to the functioning of the petitioner and that the petitioner is not entitled to be released any amounts from funds. Heard Sri Abhinand K.Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. For the benefit of the individuals, who did not have the formal education, the Government, through its various agencies, has arranged for opening of centers for imparting Non-formal Education. Since the programme was adhoc in nature, establishment of centers was entrusted to private agencies. The petitioner claims to have been entrusted with the work of establishment of 93 centres. The relevant orders in this regard are not enclosed. Petitioner states that on account of misunderstanding between itself and the authorities in the D.R.D.A., voluminous correspondence ensued and on a recommendation made by the authorities of D.R.D.A., the Education Department is withholding its funds. In writ petition No.26706 of 1998, this court took the view that the nature of performance of the petitioner as regards the watershed projects cannot be treated as a basis for release of the funds or assessment of the performance of the petitioner vis-à-vis the educational institutions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed before this court voluminous material particularly in the form of the report of the enquiry officer, this court is not inclined to record any definite finding as to the number of institutions established by the petitioner or his entitlement to be paid any particular amount. This much however, can be said that the entitlement of the petitioner to be released the relevant funds would depend upon the verification of the concerned records and not the performance of the petitioner as regards the work entrusted to it by the D.R.D.A. The record discloses that no formal communication with relevant facts and figures has been communicated to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that: (a) it shall be open to the petitioner to submit a claim to the respondents 2 and 4 with necessary documents in support of its claim, within a period of one month from today, and (b) on receipt of such representation, respondents 2 and 4 either independently or jointly shall verify the matter with reference to the records and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 16.12.2008 Stp