ORDER This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.522/1/2010-B, dated 27.4.2013 of respondent No. 1 whereby he has superseded the Jogipet Cluster Consortium constituted vide Rc.No.522/1/2010-B dated 5.3.2013 and reconstituted the same with respondent No. 3 as its Chairman. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, has granted the Integrated Handloom Development Scheme (for short "the IHD Scheme") under which clusters are identified for release of financial grants to such identified clusters. Jogipet Handloom Cluster is one such cluster. The IHD Scheme further envisages a Consortium for each Cluster comprising stake holders/ weavers for carrying on activities such as maintenance of yarn depot, stocking finished cloth etc. Respondent No. 1 has been authorised to constitute the Cluster Consortium for the Jogipet Handloom Cluster. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 7.4.2011, respondent No. 1 has constituted a Cluster Consortium with 8 members, with the direction to get the same registered under the Societies Registration Act and accordingly the Cluster was registered on 8.9.2012. As six out of the eight Consortium members have resigned, on 30.1.2013 respondent No. 1 has reconstituted the Cluster Consortium with the petitioner as the Chairman and nine persons as its members. About a month and a half later, respondent No. 1 has superseded the re-constituted Cluster Consortium in question and constituted a fresh Cluster Consortium with respondent No. 3 as its Chairman and 11 other persons as its members. It is this proceeding which is questioned in this writ petition. 3. The main plea of the petitioner is that the action of respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and mala fide inasmuch as he has superseded the Jogipet Handloom Cluster Consortium without even notice to the petitioner or any of the members. 4. Respondent No. 1 alone filed a counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 3, who is the contesting respondent, has not filed any counter-affidavit. 4. Respondent No. 1 alone filed a counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 3, who is the contesting respondent, has not filed any counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, it is inter alia stated that after re-constitution of the Jogipet Cluster Consortium on 5.3.2013, a team of 12 weaver representatives, including the ex-Cluster Consortium Chairman-respondent No. 3 made a representation to the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 23.3.2013 for recommendation of their names for formation of Cluster Consortium with respondent No. 3 as its Chairman and the recommendation of the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister was forwarded to the office of respondent No. 1 and that the said proposal was kept pending for about one month. Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the said team of 12 weaver members again personally approached the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister and complained of the delay, upon which the latter issued oral instructions to appoint the said 12 members who made their representation on 23.3.2013 with respondent No. 3 as the Chairman of the Cluster Consortium and that in pursuance of the same, respondent No. 1 has issued the impugned proceedings superseding the previous Cluster Consortium constituted on 5.3.2013 and appointed the new Cluster Consortium. 5. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Sri A. Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, have conceded that the Department of Handloom and Textiles does not fall within the portfolio of the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister who also happens to be the local M.L.A. 6. In my opinion, the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister has no power or authority to interfere in any matter unconcerned with his portfolio. The constitution of the Cluster Consortium is covered by the IHD Scheme envisaged by the Government of India. Respondent No. 1 being the authority vested with the function of constitution of the Cluster Consortium cannot allow himself to be guided by external influence, irrespective of the position of a person, bringing such influence to bear upon him, so long as such person is not concerned with the affairs of the Department of Handloom and Textiles. 7. Respondent No. 1 is so candid in his stand taken in the counter-affidavit which discloses that the only reason for superseding the previous Cluster Consortium was the oral directions issued by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Respondent No. 1 is so candid in his stand taken in the counter-affidavit which discloses that the only reason for superseding the previous Cluster Consortium was the oral directions issued by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the decision of respondent No. 1 is a result of the colourable exercise of power at the instance of a functionary who is unconnected with the constitution of the Cluster Consortium in question. Respondent No. 1 has not even issued a notice to the petitioner or any of the members of the Cluster Consortium constituted on 5.3.2013 before superseding the same. It is not even the pleaded case of respondent No. 1 that the performance of the Cluster Consortium headed by the petitioner was not satisfactory or that they have been facing any allegations in discharge of their functions as the members of the Cluster Consortium. In the face of the above uncontroverted facts, the impugned action of respondent No. 1, actuated by extraneous reasons, cannot be sustained. 8. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the Cluster Consortium is not a statutory body. 9. I am afraid, this submission has no merit. The Cluster Consortium is constituted under IHD Scheme framed by the Government of India for the welfare of the weavers involved in handloom activity. Huge public funds are being spent by the Government of India under the said Scheme. The activities carried on under the IHD Scheme, therefore, have an element of public interest and such activities cannot be insulated from public law remedy of the Constitutional Courts. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, cannot be sustained, and the same is rejected. 10. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings are set-aside and consequently proceedings dated 5.3.2013 in Rc.522/1/2010-B, of respondent No. 1 shall stand revived forthwith. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 12. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 17362/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.