Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Ameena Bee And Ors. vs Commissioner, Anantapur Municipality ... on 21 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(3)ALD387, 2005(2)ALT576
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. Aggrieved by the common Order, dated 29-12-2004, passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, the present batch of appeals has been preferred by them.
2. The appellants herein filed the writ petitions challenging the proceedings, dated 17-11-2004, of the Commissioner, Anantapur Municipality, whereby some new implementing agencies were sought to be entrusted with the work of cooking mid-day meal in the schools. The appellants are the existing implementing agencies. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur vide proceedings, dated 28-12-2002, granted approval of the implementing agencies identified by the Municipalities concerned for implementing the mid-day meal programme in the urban areas with effect from 2-1 -2003. The appellants herein are the identified implementing agencies. The proceedings of the District Collector itself reveal that the amounts released by the Government for the implementation of the programme may have to be released to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, who in turn distributes the amount to the implementing agencies based on the requirement.
3. That the predominant purpose of engaging the services of the implementing agencies is to entrust them with the work of cooking so that the scheme is properly implemented and the students derive the benefit of the scheme. It is meant for the welfare and benefit of the students. Even the proceedings of the District Collector, referred to hereinabove, does not confer any right upon anyone of the implementing agencies. The implementing agencies are not expected to convert this scheme into any profit making ventures. May be in the process, the actual personnel involved may derive semblance of wage, but the scheme is not intended to provide any employment to any individual or implementing agencies. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the proceedings of the District Collector approving the list of identified implementing agencies by the Municipality itself does not confer any indefeasible right upon any one of the implementing agencies or individuals consisting of such implementing agencies.
4. The Commissioner, Anantapur Municipality vide impugned proceedings, dated 17-11 -2004, pursuant to the directions of the Government to review the performance of the implementing agencies and to effect changes, whenever necessary, decided to make certain changes in implementing agencies with a view to rationalize the allotment of schools in uniform manner to the extent possible to provide an opportunity to some more agencies and wage employment. It is in the said process of implementing the rationalization programme that some of the schools and students, which were earlier allotted to the appellants herein are sought to be allotted and made over to the new implementing agencies. It is in the same process of achieving the avowed object of rationalization.
5. The impugned proceedings, dated 17-11 -2004, which is challenged before us, in our considered opinion, in no manner affects any of the guaranteed rights of the appellants herein. The order under which the appellants herein were entrusted with a duty of cooking the mid-day meal itself does not confer any right and therefore, the question of taking of any right, as such, does not arise. The impugned decision obviously appears to have been taken by the Municipality pursuant to the instructions of the Government, which itself is in the realm of the policy decision. Implementation of I schemes may depend upon variety of circumstances and the administration learns by experience and there is nothing wrong in changing the manner of implementation of the schemes by involving some more implementing agencies. The appellants cannot claim any monopoly as implementing agencies and insist that the same number of students/schools must be entrusted continuously and no other new implementing agency should be allowed to be intruded into in implementing the scheme.
6. Suffice it to hold that the impugned rights of the appellants requiring our interference.
7. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, however submits that in the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality, some allegations are levelled against the appellants herein, which may adversely affect their right for consideration in future not only with regard to the present scheme but any scheme that may be entrusted to the DWCRA groups and if the decision is based on such allegations, they are entitled to notice and opportunity,
8. We find some force in the above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. We consider it appropriate to make it clear that the allegations made against the appellants herein in the counter affidavit shall not come in their way in any manner whatsoever in considering their future claims. The authorities shall not be influenced by those allegations made against the appellants and their future claims shall have to be considered on their own merits.
9. With the clarifications and observations as above, the writ appeals shall stand dismissed.