LAWS(APH)-2005-2-65

D AMEENA BEE Vs. COMMISSIONER ANANTAPUR MUNICIPALITY ANANTAPUR

Decided On February 21, 2005
D.AMEENA BEE Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPALITY, ANANTAPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.