WP/27612/2005 of Md.Ali Khan Vs The District Collector (Backward Classes Welfare) on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.27612 of 2005

The petitioner claims to be the member of the Habitation Committee of BurugupalliVillage in Medak District. The first respondent herein by proceedings dated22.08.2002 sanctioned the construction of new Government Backward Class HostelBuildings (hereinafter called ‘Hostel’) in different places of Medak District underFood for work (FFW) Programme. The financing pattern requires a contribution bypublic to the tune of 10%, cash component of 44% and labour component of 54%. AHostel was also sanctioned at Burugupalli Village at an estimated cost ofRs.10,00,000/-. The work was entrusted to the petitioner through the fourthrespondent and the petitioner allegedly completed the work to the tune ofRs.7,80,000/-, but he was allegedly asked to stop the work for want of funds. Againthe first respondent sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by proceedings dated27.10.2005 for completion of the work, but instead of entrusting the work to thepetitioner, the third respondent was asked to complete the work departmentally.Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 21.12.2005 forsettling the accounts and also for allotting the balance of work of Hostel atBurugupalli Village to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a consequentialdirection to allot the work to him.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner wasalways sincere to complete the work within the stipulated time, but the respondentsthemselves prevented him from completing the work in 2003 on the ground thatthere are no adequate funds. Therefore, when funds are available, the petitioneralone should be given an opportunity to complete the work and if the work isentrusted to the third respondent, it would be arbitrary.

At the stage of admission itself, the learned Assistant Government Pleader forPanchayat Raj on instructions submits that the petitioner has not completed the workwithin the stipulated time. He also submits that an amount of Rs.7,62,122/- was paidto the petitioner by way of cash component and rice component as against the workcompleted by the petitioner in a sum of Rs.7,85,792/-. He also submits that havingregard to the fresh allotment of funds, as per the orders of the District Collector, thework is being taken up departmentally, and the same does not amount to anyarbitrariness in execution of the work.

The attention of this Court to the Divisional Level Agreement is invited. The samewould show that as per the agreement, the petitioner was required to commence thework on 01.10.2003 and complete the same by 31.07.2004. Whatever be the reason,he did not complete the work, and therefore, he cannot claim any right under theagreement, which expired long ago. Secondly, even if the petitioner’s contention isaccepted that he was forced to stop the work as directed by the respondents for wantof funds, the contract between the petitioner and the third respondent got frustratedand the same cannot be enforced in a writ petition. Thirdly, it is well settled thatwhen a public authority undertakes the work departmentally, the same does notviolate any principle of law. Indeed, there is no compulsion that for executing everywork, the Government should enter into contract with the citizens. It is within thediscretion of the Government or public authorities either to enter into a contract forcompleting the work or themselves take up the work. By exercising the jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such matters, the Court cannotinterfere with the exercise of discretion by the executive authorities. However, ifthere are any arrears payable to the petitioners, it shall be open to him to make arepresentation for such payment.

The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

28.12.2005