Zilla Vikalangula Sangam, Vs The Government of India, Rep. byits Secretary

ZILLA VIKALANGULA SANGAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT T. SAIDAMMA, D/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 11-444, DAKSHINA BAZAAR, VINUKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP BYITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶15

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BYITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, SASTRY BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.

¶16

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DISABLED WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents denying grant-in-aid to the petitioner society and the issuance of proceedings by the Respondent No.1 vide F.No. 19-3/2008DD-V, dated 08-05-2009, as bias, discriminatory and against the spirit of DDRS of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment which is

¶19

2

¶20

causing detrimental to the fundamental rights of the petitioner and fundamental principles of natural justice and set aside the same as the same as null and void and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 14562 OF 2009

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to sanction grant-in-aid to the Petitioner Society as per the recommendations of the Respondent No.3 for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 vide its Letters NO. 1772/DWA1/2007, dated 31-10-2007 and 3107/DWA1/2008-3, dated 07-11-2008, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶23

IA NO: 4 OF 2009(WPMP 73549 OF 2009

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 9372 OF 2011

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the grant-in-aid for the year 2009-2010 or to reserve the same in the name of the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 29587 OF 2012

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the mater and issue necessary directions for posting the matter in the first page of the I Hearings for early hearing of the above Writ Petition forthwith

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.PRAKASH BUDDARAPU

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶33

2.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶34

3.K RAJITHA

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

3

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.11338 of 2009

¶39

& WRIT PETITION No.28417 OF 2008

¶40

COMMON ORDER: -

¶41

The petitioner-Sangam has been registered under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 with the District Registrar, Narasaraopet vide Registered No.79/80, dated 10.06.1980. The Society is running a Residential School-cum-Vocational Training Centre for disabled persons since 1992, with the strength of 440 students. The students are provided free boarding, education and accommodation. The Society also running a school for the Deaf, Shelter to street children and school for Child Labour under the name and style of “Balahitha” under the scheme of National Child Labour Project, since 1998.

¶42

The Government of India i.e., 1^st respondent has sanctioned grandin-aid for the Residential School-cum-Vocational Training Centre for the year 1992-93; residential school for deaf for the year 1994-95 and street children project for the year 1998-99 initially and continued with the grant till the academic year 1999-2000. For the year 2000-01 also grant-in-aid was sanctioned for first installment.

¶43

While the matter stood thus, the Government of India stopped the grant-in-aid due to an enquiry conducted by the Child Foundation of India and kept the petitioner-Society in blacklist vide proceedings, dated

¶44

4

¶45

20.04.2001. The Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed 3-men Committee and the said committee submitted report giving clean chit to the petitioner-Society. The petitioner-Society made a representation to the respondents to release grant-in-aid, but the respondents replied that they cannot delete the petitioner’s-Society from the blacklist during the pendency of ACB case in Crime No.15/ACB-VJA/2000 which was registered against the Ex-President of the petitioner-Society. The action of the respondents in blacklisting the Society on the pretext of ACB case was challenged in W.P.No.21721 of 2005 and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 10.10.2007 and quashed the blacklisting proceedings, dated 20.04.2001. Though the letter, dated 11.06.2008 was issued by 2^nd respondent to all Departments informing that the petitionerSociety was deleted from the blacklist, it is made clear that de-blacklisting of the Society shall not entitled for release of future grants. The intention of the respondents shows that they have bore grudge against the petitioner-Society and decided not to give any grant to the petitionerSociety. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the petitionerSociety filed W.P.No.28417 of 2008.

¶46

In the said writ petition, this Court was pleased to pass interim order in W.P.M.P.No.37235 of 2008, dated 30.03.2009 directing the respondents to consider to release the grant-in-aid to the petitionerSociety for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 as per the recommendations of the State Government in its letter, dated 07.11.2008 and in view of the

¶47

5

¶48

fact that the petitioner-Society had already been de-blacklisted through office Memorandum, dated 11.06.2008 of Ministry of Women & Child Development and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. On receipt of the said orders, the 2^nd respondent issued letter, dated 24.04.2009 stating that they did not receive any recommendations or proposals from the State Government to consider to release of grant under project of Street Children. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued proceedings, dated 08.05.2009 stating that the petitioner-Society is not entitled for grant-in-aid for previous years. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dated 08.05.2009 of the 1^st respondent, the petitionerSociety filed W.P.No.11338 of 2009.

¶49

Considering the fact that the parties are one and the same in both the writ petitions and the issue involved in these writ petitions also is interrelated and accordingly with the consent of both sides, the two writ petitions are disposed of by way of common order.

¶50

Heard Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel and M/s.K. Rajitha, learned Government Pleader for Women Development Child Welfare and perused the record.

¶51

During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the reason for not considering the release grant-in-aid to the petitioner-Society by the respondents is due to

¶52

6

¶53

the pendency of ACB case. In fact, it is no way relevant to the activities and administration of the petitioner-society as the said ACB case is against an individual. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said ACB case has been quashed by this Court. At present, there is no any criminal case linked to the petitioner-Society. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the blacklisting of the petitioner-society is also quashed by this Court by order, dated 10.10.2007 in W.P.No.21721 of 2005. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that now the previous President of the Society also no more. The learned Senior Counsel submits that under these changed circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the request of the petitioner-Society in a positive way and grant-in-aid to enable the petitioner-society to continue its social and charitable activities.

¶54

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that they have no objection, if the petitioner-society makes representation to the respondents informing the changed circumstances along with the requisite documents. The said representation would be considered in accordance with law.

¶55

Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels, in my considered opinion, this Court need not go into the merits of the case further. Therefore, these writ petitions can be disposed of by passing certain directions to both sides to meet the interest of justice.

¶56

7

¶57

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶58

(1) The petitioner shall submit a report along with all requisite documents to the respondents within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶59

(2) On receipt of the said representation, the respondents shall consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner-society.

¶60