V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions were heard at length at the admission stage and, therefore, being disposed of by this common order as the background of facts and questions for consideration are similar. ( 2 ) THE two petitioners represent people belonging to weaker sections, Scheduled castes and various communities engaged in scavenging work. The Government of andhra Pradesh vide G. O. Ms. No. 30, municipal Administration and Urban development Department, dated 18-6-2000 considered the request of A. P. Municipal and Panchayat Workers Federation, guntur for entrustment of sanitation works to the societies formed with erstwhile sanitation workers, Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and DWACRA groups formed by workers unions. The Government ordered that tender conditions may be relaxed as the societies are experienced in sanitation work. The Government directed all the municipalities in the State to entrust a portion of the sanitation work to such societies formed by the sanitation workers unions without participating in the tenders so that efficiency in sanitation may be improved. ( 3 ) IN W. P. No. 7040 of 2003 filed by dalit Jathi Labour Contract Co-operative society, a short tender notification dated 30-4-2003 issued by L. B. Nagar Municipality, the first respondent herein, inviting tenders for doing sanitation work zone wise for the financial year 2003-2004 under privatisation is challenged. In the other writ petition filed by Sri Venkata Sai Scheduled Caste labour Welfare Society, a similar short tender notice inviting tenders from labour contractors for lifting garbage by engaging contractors for the same financial year zone wise in L. B. Nagar Municipality is challenged. The only contention raised is that in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 30, dated 18-6-2000 there is an obligation on the Municipality to allot 15% of such work to the sanitation workers unions without participating in the tenders. There cannot be any dispute that by reason of Section 387a of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 ( the Act ), it is competent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to give directions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Section 326 of the Act enables the Government to make rules. This is not disputed. ( 4 ) FURTHER, in exercise of their power under Section 326 of the Act, the government promulgated A. P. Municipalities tender Rules, 1967. Section 326 of the Act enables the Government to make rules. This is not disputed. ( 4 ) FURTHER, in exercise of their power under Section 326 of the Act, the government promulgated A. P. Municipalities tender Rules, 1967. These rules govern the invitation and disposal of tenders for municipal work. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules requires that at least 15% of the work be reserved for entrustment to the labour contract co-operative societies formed of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and Vadderas and the individuals belonging to the said communities who happen to be unemployed or retrenched engineers. Placing reliance on this provision, the learned Counsel submits that the directions issued by the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 30, dated 18-6-2000 under section 387 A of the Act are not inconsistent with the Rules and, therefore, inviting tenders for the entrustment of sanitation work in various zones of L. B. Nagar municipality without following the directions issued in the said Government Order, is illegal and unsustainable. Learned Standing counsel for Municipalities, Sri V. Viswanatham, submits that as the tender rules are not clear, the Commissioner has invited tenders from the labour contract co-operative societies. ( 5 ) AFTER perusing the provisions referred to hereinabove carefully, I am convinced that though G. O. Ms. No. 30, dated 18-6-2000 does not specifically mention 15% reservation for labour contract societies of scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and sanitation workers, having regard to the phraseology in paragraph 3 of the said government Order that "entrustment of a portion of sanitation work", it is reasonable to infer that what was intended was to give 15% reservation for the societies like the petitioners. Be it noted, G. O. Ms. No. 30, was issued in June, 2000 and by that date rule 3 (2) of the Rules was very much on the statute book. Whether or not the government Order mentions specifically, i am convinced that an obligation is cast on the municipality to reserve at least 15% of the sanitation works for entrustment to labour contract societies. However, I may hasten to add that it is always open to the municipality to entrust sanitation works beyond 15% if the municipality chooses to do. Whatever be the case, there shall be entrustment of 15% of sanitation works to the societies such as petitioners without participating in the tenders. However, I may hasten to add that it is always open to the municipality to entrust sanitation works beyond 15% if the municipality chooses to do. Whatever be the case, there shall be entrustment of 15% of sanitation works to the societies such as petitioners without participating in the tenders. ( 6 ) INSOFAR as the relief to be granted in the writ petition is concerned, short tenders were invited for allotment of work zone wise in the municipalities. The petitioners grievance is only for allotment/entrustment of sanitation work without participating in the tenders. Therefore, there is no necessity to set aside the tender notice. When tenders already received are considered by the municipality, they must entrust at least 15% of sanitation work (there can be entrustment of more percentage of work) to the labour contract societies as described in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules. It is also open to the petitioners to make application to the Municipality for entrustment of sanitation work. ( 7 ) THE writ petition, subject to the above observations is accordingly allowed.