IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.11634, 11635, 11663 and 11664 of 2006 W.P.No.11634 of 2006: Between: Shaik Munvar, w/o Shaik Riyaz r/o Vasavi Complex, M.S.R.Road, Kanigiri V & M Prakasham Dist. A.P.523 230. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt.of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Department of Information Technology, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director EDS (E-SEVA), Govt.of A.P., MCH Building, Road No.7, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-34. 3 The District Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole, A.P. 4 M/s.B.E.L.Company rep., by its Manager, Flat No.302, 6-3-1219/24, Above Karnataka Bank, Lane Beside Lifestyle Building, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 500 016. 5 Somishitti Venkata Srinivas Rao, s/o Somishitti Sree Ramulu, r/o Devaki Plaza, M.S.R.Road, Kanigivi V& M, Prakasham District, A.P.523 230. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3, in non preventing the respondent No.4 and 5 from opening new Rajiv Internet Village Centre at Kanigiri Village & Mandal, Prakasham District, where R.S.D.P.Center unit is already functioning as per letter No.113/Rajiv/E.D.S./2005 dt.8-12-2005 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 and 5 not to open Rajiv Internet Village Center at Kanigiri Village & Mandal, Prakasham District where RSDP unit of the petitioner is already functioning and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BETHI.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . WRIT PETITION NO : 11635 of 2006 Between: Pallakonda Radha, w/o Prasad Rao, r/o Balaji E-Seva Kendram, Pamur Village & Mandal, Dist:Prakasam, A.P.523 108. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Department of Information Technology, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, EDS, (E.SEVA) Govt.of A.P., MCH Building, Road No.7, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-34. 3 The Dist.Collector, prakasham District, Ongole, A.P., 4 M/s.B.E.L.Company rep., by its Manager, Flat no.302, 6-3-1219/24, Above Karnataka Bank, Lane Beside Lifestyle Building, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 500 016. 5 Adachumalli Prabhaker Rao, s/o Mala Kondaiah, r/o N.G.O's Colony, Pamur Village & Mandal, Prakasham District, A.P., 523 108. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3, in non preventing the respondent No.4 and 5 from opening new Rajiv Internet Village Centre at Pamur Village & Mandal, Prakasham District where R.S.D.P.Center unit is already functioning as per letter No.113/Rajiv/E.D.S./2005, dt.8-12-2005 is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent No.4 and 5 not to open Rajiv Internet Village Center at Pamur Village & Mandal, prakasham District where RSDP unit of the petitioner is already functioning and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BETHI.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . WRIT PETITION NO : 11663 of 2006 Between: Madadugu Sudhakar, S/o.Ramachandra Murthy R/o.Main Road, Martur V&M.District: Prakasam A.P., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of AP., rep.by its Secretary, Department of Information Technology, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director EDS., (E.SEVA), Govt of AP., M.C.H., Building Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34 3 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, A.P., 4 M/s.B.E.L. Companay, Rep.by its manager, Flat No.302 6-3- 1219/24,Above Karnataka bank, Lane Beside Lifestyle Building, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 5 Pentiyala Srinivasa Rao S/o.Hanumanth Rao R/o.Martur, V&M., Prakasam District., AP. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not preventing the respondent No.4 & 5 from opening new Rajiv Internet village centre at Martur village & mandal, Prakasam District where R.S.D.P. center unit is already functioning as per letter No.113/Rajiv/E.D.S./2005 dated 8.12.2005 is illegal, arbitrry, and violation of the articles 14&16 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4&5 not to open Rajiv Internet village Centre at Martur village & Mandal, Prakasam District where RSDP unit of the petitioner is already functioning. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BETHI.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . WRIT PETITION NO : 11664 of 2006 Between: Shaik Mastanvali, S/o. Johnu, R/o. Opp. Jenda Tree, Cinema Hall Road, Inkollu Village & Mandal, Prakasam Dsitrict, A.P. 523 167 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Department of Information Technology, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, EDS., (E.SEVA), Govt. of A.P., M.C.H. Building, Road No. 7, Banjarahills, Hyderabad - 34 3 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole A.P., 4 M/s. B.E.L., Company, Rep by its Manager, Flat No. 302, 6-3- 1219/24, Above Karnataka Bank, Lane Beside Lifestyle Building, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. 5 Erram Anuradha, W/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. 62/8, Jain Complex, Parchur Road, Inkollu V & M, Prakasam District, A.P., 523 167. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3, in non preventing the respondent No. 4 and 5 from opening new Rajiv internet Village Centre at Inkollu Village & Mandal, Prakasam District, where R.S.D.P. Center unit is already functioning, as per Letter No.113/Rajiv/E.D.S/2005, dt. 8-12-2005, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 and 4 not to open Rajiv Internet Village Center at Inkollu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, where RSDP unit of the petitioner is already functioning and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BETHI.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: In these four writ petitions, the common grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not implementing the policy, as regards the location of rural kiosks under the project ‘Rajiv Internet Village Programme’ (for short ‘the Programme’). The petitioners were accorded permission in the year 2004 to establish and run Rural Services Delivery Point Booths (for short ‘the Booths’), in various villages in Prakasam District. Specific orders of sanction were issued in favour of the individual petitioners. Subsidy to the extent of Rs.7,500/-and bank loan to the extent of Rs.35,000/- was also provided for. About one year thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 04.05.2005, evolving the programme almost for the same purpose for which the booths were created. With a view to avoid overlapping, instructions were issued from time to time to ensure that the kiosks under the programme are not established in the villages where the booths are established. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said policy is not implemented in its letter and spirit. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2. Almost every assertion, as regards the contents of the programmes, referred to above, is admitted. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department. The object underlying the establishment of booths or kiosks, under different schemes, is only to provide information to the villagers. In view of this, instructions were issued at various stages to ensure that the kiosks are not established in the places, which are already served through booths. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the second respondent issued proceedings, dated 17.06.2008, requesting the concerned individuals and authorities not only to ensure that such overlapping does not exist, but also to shift the kiosks under the scheme to other places, if the areas are already served through booths under the Programme. With this, the viewpoint urged by the petitioners gets strengthened. While issuing notice before admission, this Court directed that status quo obtaining as on 13.06.2006, shall be maintained. The interests of the petitioners were protected with that order. Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing that the respondents shall ensure that the kiosks under the Rajiv Internet Village Programme are not established in the places, which are already served through the booths under the Rural Services Delivery Point. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:23.01.2009 GJ