JUDGMENT By the Court.—As agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, all the above three writ petitions are being heard and decided together. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 77600 of 2005 2. The petitioners-Central Cooperative Construction & Development Division Limited through its General Manager Meenakshi-claiming to be a Multi State Cooperative Society registered under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 have approached this Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India. 3. 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. 4. 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 & Accounts Officer, DRDA, Banda) in writ petition No. 16347 of 2006, Central Cooperative Construction & Development Division Limited and another v. State of U.P. and others. 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. 5. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioners were given contract for executing certain work (sponsored under MLAs’ fund). We find no decision of the State Government or direction of the Commissioner, Village Development, U.P. deciding to give work to the petitioners. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents themselves relaxed the policy of excluding NGOs. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel argued that the said order was passed by the State Government to implement its policy to exclude NGOs from executing the work sponsored under MLAs/MPs fund in view of the said experience of the State Government that MLAs/MPs funds were mis-utilised, sub-standard works were got executed, and in the wisdom of the State Government, the said policy of April 2002 required no change, nor relaxation, and hence the above order dated 8-12-2005 was issued. Learned Standing Counsel is, however, unable to justify or support the action of the respondents to snatch work contract already given before 8-12-2005 solely on the ground of direction contained in the said letter dated 8-12-2005. Learned Standing Counsel expressed apprehension that if the order dated 8-12-2005 is set aside, the respondents shall be restrained from initiating inquiry/action if there is complaint with regard to sub-standard work. Learned Standing Counsel expressed apprehension that if the order dated 8-12-2005 is set aside, the respondents shall be restrained from initiating inquiry/action if there is complaint with regard to sub-standard work. We see no substance in the said apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondents inasmuch as, by setting aside impugned order dated 8-12-2005, the power of the respondents’ authority to inquire and if so advised, to take requisite action in case the petitioners have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the work contract and/or if otherwise it is found that the work executed by the petitioners is not as per standard norms, is not being eclipsed or restricted. 9. The petitioners have referred to certain documents annexed with the writ petition to show that the work has been executed as per prescribed standard. 10. We do not enter into this aspect as it is not relevant at this stage for the purpose of deciding present writ petition. 11. We further note that the direction contained in the letter Nos. 1848 and 1852 dated 17-12-2005 (filed alongwith the affidavit in support of the above referred amendment application) which have been issued solely on the strength and basis of the order dated 8-12-2005, cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is nothing in the said order dated 8-12-2005 requiring cancellation of work contract or refund of money released to the petitioners in pursuance to the said work contract which had already taken place prior to the issuance of the said order dated 8-12-2005. 12. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned orders dated 17-12-2005 contained in letters No. 1848 and 1852 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the Amendment Application). The prayer with regard to quashing of the order dated 8-12-2005 is, however, rejected. It is clarified that by issuance of the order dated 8-12-2005/Annexure-12 to the writ petition, the work contract given in favour of the petitioners, prior to its issuance, is not prejudiced or affected in any manner. We further clarify that it is open to the parties to ensure and see that terms and conditions of work contract are being enforced and the parties are at liberty to enforce their right on the basis of the same. 13. Writ petition stands partly to the extent indicated above and subject to the directions and observations made above. 14. No order as to costs. Civil Misc. 13. Writ petition stands partly to the extent indicated above and subject to the directions and observations made above. 14. No order as to costs. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16347 of 2006 15. Basic facts in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16347 of 2006 are not being repeated as already mentioned while dealing with writ petition No. 77600 of 2006. 16. By means of this petition, the petitioners prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 4/Additional Commissioner (Karyakram), Government of U.P. Lucknow and opposite party No. 5/Chief Development Officer, Allahabad to consider petitioners’ claim for providing work order for construction work out of the MLAs development funds in accordance with law. 17. Alongwith the counter-affidavit (referred to above), the respondents have filed copy of the order dated 9-3-2006 written by Special Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Chief Development Officer, Pratapgarh. The said order dated 9-3-2006 was issued with reference to the Government’s earlier order dated 18-1-2006/Annexure-9 to the writ petition. By means of the aforesaid order dated 9-3-2006, the State Government has taken a stand that no work contract with reference to the work sponsored under MLAs’ fund be given to NGOs as per policy of April 2002, copy of which has been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit (referred to above) as Annexure-2. 18. Under order dated 9-3-2006, the Chief Development Officer, Pratapgarh was further required to ensure that no work contract is given to NGOs (including Zila Shram Evam Nirman Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Pratapgarh). The State Government placed immediate ban on such contract and directed the Chief Development Officer to ensure its compliance. 19. It is to be noted that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the present writ petition is for being considered for allotment of work contract under MLAs’ development funds on the basis of parity with the NGO (Zila Shram Evam Nirman Sangh Ltd. Pratapgarh) who was given the work contract from the said fund in view of the stand taken by the State Government vide its order dated 9-3-2006. 20. We do not find justification for accepting the relief claimed by the petitioners. However, before parting with this petition, we would like to emphasize and further issue a direction to the concerned respondent authority to ensure compliance of the order dated 9-3-2006 at the end of Chief Development Officer, Pratapgarh in letter and spirit. 20. We do not find justification for accepting the relief claimed by the petitioners. However, before parting with this petition, we would like to emphasize and further issue a direction to the concerned respondent authority to ensure compliance of the order dated 9-3-2006 at the end of Chief Development Officer, Pratapgarh in letter and spirit. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that as per policy of April 2002, NGOs have been excluded from allotment of work under MLAs development fund, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as claimed in the present writ petition. In view of the stand taken by the respondents (as reflected from their letter dated 9-3-2006/Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit), we direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to ensure that the direction given by them to the Chief Development Officer, Pratapgarh vide their order dated 9-3-2006 be also enforced and followed by all the concerned in all the Districts of State of U.P. with equal force in letter and spirit. 21. Writ petition stands finally disposed of subject to the above observation and direction. 22. No order as to costs. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 71361 of 2006 23. In view of the judgment and order rendered by us in the above two writ petitions, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. 24. No order as to costs. ————