ZILLA VIKLANGULA SANGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by Zilla vikalangula Sangham, represented by its president T. Saidamma, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in putting the petitioner organization on blacklist, vide proceedings file No. 12/1 (4)/2000-2001-SD (NGO), dated 20. 04. 2001, and continuing the same on blacklist despite the enquiry report submitted by the 2 and 3 respondents mentioning that the activities of the petitioner organization for Street Children are satisfactory and the same is eligible for receiving grant-in-aid, vide their proceedings Lr. No. 3953/j3/a2/ 2002-1, dated 27. 05. 2002 and Lr. No. P3/112/ 2002, dated 06. 06. 2002, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions.

(2.) SRI Seetharam Chaparla, the learned counsel, representing Sri K. Gani Reddy, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respective counter-affidavits filed by the 1 respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 and also the contents of the reply affidavit and would comment that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that even otherwise the so-called allegations in relation to the credentials of the petitioner organization are only based upon assumptions and presumptions and absolutely there is no acceptable or valid material in relation thereto. The learned counsel also would maintain that the so-called non-government Organization nodal agency has no right to inspect the petitioner organization of Street Children project for the simple reason that the said nodal Agency is also running the similar project of street children and the same is being controlled by the 1 respondent. The learned counsel also would maintain that the two-Man Committee categorically stated that the activities of the Street Children Project of the petitioner organization are found satisfactory and the said organization is entitled to the grant-in-aid. The learned counsel also would maintain that, having directed the State Government authorities to conduct enquiry into the matter and having received the enquiry report, absolutely there is no justification on the part of the 1 respondent in delaying the sanction of grant-in-aid and also continuing the petitioner on the blacklist. The learned counsel also would maintain that the petitioner society is not involved in any criminal case and the so-called criminal case had been filed against the former President and by that it cannot be said that the petitioner society should be continued to be kept under the blacklist. The learned counsel also would further maintain that the District Collector himself sanctioned the loan and the concerned authorities, after taking into consideration the enquiry report, had released the grant-in-aid and, in the light of the same, it can be taken that the petitioner society had been deleted from the blacklist. The learned counsel also would further maintain that the concerned authorities, having directed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and having promised to release the grant-in-aid and having released the grant-in-aid, are now estopped from contending otherwise taking a stand that the petitioner is under the blacklist. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on a decision in mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief election Commissioner, New Delhi and others

(3.) PER contra, the learned Assistant solicitor General, representing the 1 respondent, had taken this Court through the counter-affidavit filed by the 1 respondent and would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken by the 1 respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also would maintain that the petitioner organization is continuing under the blacklist and Anti corruption Bureau of Government of A. P. , having detected that the petitioner organization had falsified record and misused the Government funds, had filed F. I. R. in the special Court of Anti Corruption Bureau, vijayawada. It is also stated that the Writ petition No. 23845 of 2002 filed by the petitioner organization against the said f. I. R. No. 15/acb-VJA/2000 on the file of the special Court of Anti Corruption Bureau, vijayawada, is pending disposal. As per rule 149 (1) of the General Financial Rules, sanctioning authorities should ensure that no grants are sanctioned where there is a reasonable suspicion or suggestion of corrupt practices unless the bodies concerned are cleared of the allegations. The learned assistant Solicitor General also would maintain that the Anti Corruption Bureau has registered a criminal case, vide No. 15/acb-VJA/2000, under Section 13 (1) (e) and (d) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sections 409, 420 and 477 (A) of the Indian penal Code against the Ex-President of the petitioner organization for acquiring disproportionate assets to his known source of income by cheating, by breach of trust and by diverting Government funds under various welfare schemes for destitute disabled and handicapped children given by State and central Government and has amassed wealth by way of cash and immovable properties. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also would maintain that the 1 respondent Ministry cannot ignore the earlier detailed correspondence of State Government regarding the organization being involved in the Anti Corruption Bureau case and it cannot also ignore the fact that the State Government had specifically withdrawn the earlier recommendation of grant-in-aid, vide letters dated 28. 04. 2003 and 28. 05. 2003, in view of the pending Anti Corruption Bureau case against the organization. The learned assistant Solicitor General also would maintain that the petitioner organization, according to the inspection report, had offered bribe and such a claim would amount to an attempt to manipulate and use of the dubious methods to force Government of India to de-blacklist the organization and sanction grant-in-aid to the organization. Hence, in the light of the same, the learned Assistant solicitor General would contend that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.