- (1.) AS agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, all the above three writ petitions are being heard and decided together. 1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 77600 of 2005 : The petitioners-Central Co-operative Construction and Development Division Limited through its General Manager Meenakshi-claiming to be a Multi State Co-operative Society registered under Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 have approached this Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India.
(2.) IT is contended that the Commissioner, Village Development, U. P. vide letter dated 26-8- 2005/annexure-7 to the writ petition, addressed to all the Chief Development Officers of U. P. , (in response to communication received from the General Manager of the petitioners' Society) required them to consider petitioners' claim for obtaining contract to execute the work sponsored under MLAs' fund. IT appears that the petitioner was allotted some work. Before we proceed further, we would like to note here itself a few facts from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of State of U. P. and others (sworn by one Vinod Kumar, Finance and Accounts Officer, DRDA, Banda) in writ petition No. 16347 of 2006, Central Co-operative Construction and Development Division Limited & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors. The said counter-affidavit is not on record. However, Sri S. K. Garg, Advocate learned Counsel for the petitioners supplied his copy for perusal of the Court and thereafter the same was taken by him. In the said counter-affidavit the respondents have filed copy of Government Policy of April, 2002/annexure-2 to the said counter-affidavit (referred in para-2. 1) which lays down that the work sponsored under MLAs' fund shall be got executed through the concerned Chief Development Officer on the basis of guidelines/criterion laid down by the Government as per established procedure for execution of such work through Public Works Department/government Department/government Agency (with restriction to engage private contractors) and with complete restriction of getting such work done through Non-Government Organizations (NGOs ). In view of the aforesaid Government decision/policy of April, 2002, apparently the said letter dated 26-8-2005 was mere request to the concerned Chief Development Officers to consider the application of the petitioners. We find no decision of the State Government or direction of the Commissioner, Village Development, U. P. deciding to give work to the petitioners. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioners were given contract for executing certain work (sponsored under MLAs' fund ). It further appears that the decision of the Commissioner, Village Development, U. P. having been brought to the notice of the State Government, another order dated 8- 12-2005 was issued by the Special Secretary, Government of U. P. (addressed to all the Chief Development Officers of U. P.)/annexure-12 to the writ petition clearly stating that earlier order dated 26-8-2005 (referred to above) was cancelled. Perusal of the said order shows that it did not seek to cancel the contract already given to the petitioners in pursuance to earlier order dated 26-8-2005. The petitioners filed this petition in the Court on 19-12-2005. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, an amendment application No. 247012/2005 was filed (alongwith affidavit of Meenakshi/petitioner No. 2) praying for incorporation of subsequent facts, legal grounds and consequential relief for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17- 12-2005 contained in letter No. 1848 dated 17-12-2005 and letter No. 1852 dated 17-12-2005 (filed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the aforesaid affidavit filed in support of the amendment application ). The said amendment application was allowed by the Court on 21-12- 2005. Vide aforesaid impugned order dated 17-12- 2005, the Project Director of the District Village Development Agency, Banda had required the addressee (Petitioners) to refund a sum of Rs. 10. 53 lacs (details given therein) for execution of the work contract solely in view of the above referred order dated 8-12-2005 though no restriction was placed in that G. O. on payment to the contractor in respect of the work executed in the past. By means of the aforementioned letter No. 1852 dated 17-12- 2005, the Project Director had further informed that a total sum of Rs. 39. 63 lacs had been released to the petitioners and no amount be spent further and the petitioners should reimburse the amount received by them as otherwise they would have to face recovery proceedings.
(3.) HEARD Sri S. K. Garg, Advocate alongwith Sri S. K. Misra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri C. S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents themselves relaxed the policy of excluding NGOs. According to him, the change in policy is reflected from the letter dated 26-8- 2005/annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is further contended that once work order was issued in pursuance to the order dated 26-8-2005, the subsequent impugned order dated 8- 12-2005/annexure- 12 to the writ petition is arbitrary, illegal and unjust for the reason that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before said decision was taken and also that it was not open for the State Government to withdraw the aforesaid order dated 26-8-2005. In other words, the contention of the petitioners is that once the State Government/authority issued order dated 26-8-2005 and on that basis work contract was issued and the petitioners had changed their position by executing the work with express or tacit consent of the respondents, the same could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect by means of the Government order and the work contract having been executed, the respondents could not arbitrarily snatch the contract/agreement to the prejudice of the petitioners.;