ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to release the amount of grant with interest in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner which is a trust and working as a Non Government Organization claims the release of the grant under the Scheme floated by the Government of India and it is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has performed its part as per the scheme, the amount due to the petitioner is not being released. As a result, the petitioner is facing loss for the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in furtherance with the object of the scheme. 2. It is submitted that periodically the Central Government had released the grant and the petitioner was also paid part from such grant for particular period and therefore, the work carried out by the petitioner was as per the scheme. It is submitted that for the period 2013 to 2014 the petitioner was paid and for the year 2015 to 2016 and 2016 onwards, though Central Government had released its share of the grant as per the scheme and an order was passed on 22.11.2017 to release the grant in favour of the petitioner, the same is not being paid. The order of 2017 was for releasing the grant in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,00,900/-. It is submitted that while issuing the release order, the respondent-Central Government had taken into consideration all the aspects including the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and other documents regarding the work of the petitioner as per the scheme and incurring of expenditure. It is submitted that for the period between 2016 to 2017, total amount of expenditure comes to Rs.18,11,700/-. 3. It is submitted that in fact the respondent No.3 had passed the release order directing the respondent No.4 to release the amount of Rs.6,00900/- on 22.11.2017, however, the respondent No.4 has not complied with such order of his superior and has not released the grant. It is submitted that the reason behind in action of respondent No.4 is an extraneous demand made by the respondent No.4. It is submitted that the reason behind in action of respondent No.4 is an extraneous demand made by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 is insisting of illegal documentary evidence for the sanctioned amount and for which he had asked the petitioner to make payment in particular account of a person with whom the petitioner has no connection and as the petitioner has not complied with such illegal demands, the grant is not released in favour of the petitioner. 3.1. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 is only a disbursing authority. Once the decision is taken for release of grant, it is not open for the respondent No.4 to withhold the release. It is submitted that under the scheme, the release order was passed for six NGOs including the name of the petitioner however, release has not made in favour of the petitioner only, whereas in case of others, the release is made. It is submitted that on the basis of affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2020 to content that the Extension Officer who was also auditor had carried out the inspection and his report indicates that the work is done by the petitioner, but wrong ground is created by the authorities that the petitioner had no sanction for a particular period for which the petitioner is claiming the release of funds. It is submitted that if such was the case then there was no question of issuing an order of carrying out audit by respondent No.3, who has appointed the Extension Officer as auditor in the year 2017. It is also submitted that on the basis of affidavit in rejoinder filed on 06.02.2020 it is submitted that the respondent No.4 is now facing inquiry on the basis of allegations made by the petitioner. 4. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the petition by submitting that the order of release of grant of the year 2017 was conditional order to comply with several requirements. It was found that the petitioner has not complied with such requirements as a result of which, the release of grant was not made. It is submitted that the scheme under which the petitioner was operating is divided in various parts explained in Clause-A to Clause-M of the scheme. The release of grant is covered under Clause-I. Clause-I(ii)(b) pertains to inspection report. It is submitted that the scheme under which the petitioner was operating is divided in various parts explained in Clause-A to Clause-M of the scheme. The release of grant is covered under Clause-I. Clause-I(ii)(b) pertains to inspection report. It was factually found that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement as per the inspection report and hence, the release of grant was not effected in favour of the petitioner. 4.1. It is submitted that the release order dated 22.11.2017 on which the petitioner is relying upon itself stipulates certain conditions to be fulfilled before being eligible for release of grant. The petitioner has not actually fulfilling such requirements and hence, the irregularities were found during the inspection. An attention is drawn to the inspection report in case of the petitioner and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to fulfill such requirements by a communication dated 20.02.2018 which also the petitioner has not fulfilled. Insofar as the allegations made against the respondent No.4, the same are denied in para-13 of affidavit-in-reply by stating that the allegations are imaginary and created only with a view to pressurize the respondent No.4 for release of the grant. 5. The Court has heard the submissions of rival parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petition is filed for release of financial grant in connection with the scheme which is Central Government sponsored scheme namely Ujjawalla which is comprehensive scheme for Prevention of Trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation and Re-integration of Victims of Trafficking for Commercial Sexual Exploitation). Such work was for the purpose of upliftment of the exploited women which was to be carried out by NGO. The petitioner being one such NGO. The scheme which had changed partially and applicable was 60% grant should be given by Central Government, 30% grant by the State Government and 10% contribution by the NGO itself. It appears that dispute is with regards to release of an amount of Rs.6,00,900/- between period of 2016-2017, where total expenditure by the petitioner was Rs.18,11,700/- and after deducting the 10% contribution by the petitioner, an amount in question was due and payable and required to be released in favour of the petitioner. 6. The office order dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure-D) is indeed for the release of the amount in question however, the release is to be preceded by compliance of certain conditions which are stipulated in such order itself. 6. The office order dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure-D) is indeed for the release of the amount in question however, the release is to be preceded by compliance of certain conditions which are stipulated in such order itself. Such conditions are as under:- “In this scheme, the payment is made under this scheme when the certificate is submitted by the organization to the effect that, the rent is proper according to the valid rent agreement. The valid rent agreement shall have to be obtained. If the NGOs running Ujjwala centre through Government of Gujarat have been paid any amount by Government of India/Government of Gujarat previously, they have to obtain its UTC. The State Government shall maintain organization wise separate record under Ujjwala Scheme and organization wise physical report shall be obtained for the period from 01/04/2016 to 30/06/2016. The UTC shall have to be sent to the Government of India till 15th April for the period from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 and accordingly for every year in the month of April. The sanctioned grant shall be paid after auditing the actual expenses incurred. The complete name and address of the centre shall have to be mentioned while submitting report to the Government of India. The expenses incurred have been granted as per the components of the scheme considering the Audit Report.” 7. The scheme Ujjawalla which was effective from 01.04.2016 which was set up for the objectives as under:- “Objectives of the Scheme:- To prevent trafficking of women and children for commercial sexual exploitation through social mobilization and involvement of local communities, awareness generation programmes, generate public discourse through workshops/seminars and such events and any other innovative activity. To faciliate rescue of victims from the place of their exploitation and place them in safe custody. To provide rehabilitation services both immediate and long-term to the victims by providing basic amenities/needs such as shelter, food, clothing, medical treatment including counselling, legal aid and guidance and vocational training. To facilitate reintegration of the victims into the family and society at large. To facilitate repatriation of cross-border victims to their country of origin.” 8. The clause of the scheme (i) pertains to release release of grant, which is as under:- “Procedure for Release of Grant State Govts./UT Administrations will release the grant to the implementing agencies as under- (i) Assistance is sought towards Ujjawala scheme, release shall be made in two equal installments every year. The clause of the scheme (i) pertains to release release of grant, which is as under:- “Procedure for Release of Grant State Govts./UT Administrations will release the grant to the implementing agencies as under- (i) Assistance is sought towards Ujjawala scheme, release shall be made in two equal installments every year. First installment will ordinarily be released along with the sanctioning of the Project. The one-time grant for nonrecurring items shall be released with the first installment. It may be ensured before release of the GIA that the implementing organization is registered with the NGO portal of NITI Aayog. (ii) The second and subsequent installment will be released after the implementing agency furnishes proof that it has spent the previous installment for the purpose for which it was granted. Request for release of the second and subsequent installment shall be accompanied by the following documents. (a) Utilization Certificate of the previous installment and an up to date consolidated statement of actual expenditure incurred. (b) Inspection Report by the state administration giving the details of Ujjawala scheme with the details of beneficiaries.” 9. Clause-M provide for levels of monitoring including monitoring at the State level by the Secretary in-charge of Social Welfare/Department of Women and Child Development in the State Government. The inspection was carried out as per the provisions of the scheme by the Dowry Officer. The report is also produced on record. In the report dated 19.05.2017 for period of six months prior thereto following observations were made upon the personal visit :- “8.1 Quality of staffs in P&R home and their behaviour towards the Beneficiary. I HAD VISITED P&R HOME, DAHOD ON 07.04.2017 at 10:30 AM TO 01:00 PM, DURING INSPECTION IT IS FOUND THAT BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE REGISTERED AND SO CALLED BEIFITED ARE ACTUALLY NOT AVAILABLE FROM LONG TIME AND NO ANY SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO THESE SO CALLED BENEFICIARIES (Sic.) 8.2 Quality of facility (infrastructure, Space) provided by the Institution to the Beneficiaries. DURING INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND THAT AREA PRIMISES FOR P&R HOME IS NOT AT ALL SUFFICIENT AND SUITABLE FOR SENCTIONED NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES. 8.3 Quality of Services (fooding/clothing/medical/counselling/etc.)for the Beneficiaries. AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, RECORDED BENIFICIERIES ARE NOT ACTUALLY AVAILABLE, AS WELL, AS DURING VISIT FOODING, CLOTHING, MADICAL AND COUNSELLING SERVICES ARE NOT ACTUALLY GIVEN TO ANY BENIFICIARIES. 9. DURING INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND THAT AREA PRIMISES FOR P&R HOME IS NOT AT ALL SUFFICIENT AND SUITABLE FOR SENCTIONED NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES. 8.3 Quality of Services (fooding/clothing/medical/counselling/etc.)for the Beneficiaries. AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, RECORDED BENIFICIERIES ARE NOT ACTUALLY AVAILABLE, AS WELL, AS DURING VISIT FOODING, CLOTHING, MADICAL AND COUNSELLING SERVICES ARE NOT ACTUALLY GIVEN TO ANY BENIFICIARIES. 9. Recommendation by the Monitoring Authority for grant disbursal (Please mention clearly the period for which last grant received and the period for which grant disbursal is recommended). 10. AS PER MY OBSERVATIONS DURING INSPECTION, P&R HOME IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SENCTIONING NEXT GRANT BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT DONE ANY WORK PROPERLY WHICH NOT MATCHES WITH GIVEN GUIDELINES.” 10. The inspection also indicated that the premises consist of four rooms, one was being used as an office and the area of premises was 14.30 Sq. Feet. It was found that there were no beds and only mattresses were found. The attendance register for the staff was available, but not maintained regularly. The beneficiaries were found to be registered, but actually there were no beneficiaries since period of one year. 11. The record which was found during the inspection was the same record which was found during the inspection of previous year on 18.05.2016 and at that time also it was indicated that no beneficiaries were available. The admission register of beneficiaries was maintained, but there were no actually beneficiaries. With regards to the documents of beneficiaries, no documents were available to support any case history of the beneficiaries, no rehabilitation was found, no photographs were found, no Court orders were found, no FIR/complaints, counseling reports, social worker’s report were found. 12. The Court therefore inclined to believe that the NGO only existed on paper to impart benefit of the scheme Ujawalla, but there were beneficiaries. In wake of such finding of fact, the claim of the petitioner to release the grant only on the basis of communication dated 22.11.2017 cannot be accepted. The Court is of the view that the conditions stipulated under that order are not being fulfilled and therefore, the order may not required to be implemented. 13. The report of Shri Nalvaya, Extension Officer which is at Annexure-H alongwith the affidavit-in-rejoinder of the petitioner is only with regards to the accounts, details of which was furnished again by the petitioner himself. 13. The report of Shri Nalvaya, Extension Officer which is at Annexure-H alongwith the affidavit-in-rejoinder of the petitioner is only with regards to the accounts, details of which was furnished again by the petitioner himself. It would be appropriate to refer to the noting made under such report that the report being for the period between 01.04.2016 t0 31.03.2016 (sic) and the date of audit being 29.08.2017 to 30.08.2017. The noting clearly indicates that on the date of audit, no victim or exploited lady was present in the centre. Such observations would not take the case of the petitioner any further as it only supports the finding of the Dowry Officer that object of the scheme is not being achieved by the petitioner and in the scheme where the object is very specific for the beneficiaries then in that case without thereby being any beneficiary, incurring of such expenditure by the petitioner is not justified. 14. With regards to the contention of the petitioner of extraneous demand made by respondent No.3, the same is denied on affidavit and therefore, it is only word against the word and therefore, the Court is not inclined to enter into the disputed question. The inquiry being under way on the complaint of the petitioner would not automatically make the petitioner entitled to release the grant for the work which does not appear to have been conducted by the petitioner. 15. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on behalf of the respondent No.3, affidavit of Deputy Director of Commissionerate, Women and Child Development, it is stated that it came to the notice of the authorities upon scrutiny that the approval of the petitioner had expired on 31.03.2016 as the petitioner’s approval was for a period of three years under the Scheme with effect from 13.05.2013 when the petitioner was granted an approval. The tenure of the approval of the petitioner had expired on 31.03.2016. Therefore, the Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department had issued a subsequent communication dated 09.08.2018 to the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Dahod intimating that the petitioner is not entitled to release of any grant as the tenure of the petitioner has expired on 31.03.2016. The said communication was also forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore, not entitled to any release as the petitioner’s approval has expired way back in 2016 and the same has not been extended for further period. The said communication was also forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore, not entitled to any release as the petitioner’s approval has expired way back in 2016 and the same has not been extended for further period. 16. The Court records that the matter was argued completely on 31.01.2020 however, at the request of the petitioner, it was posted on 04.02.2020 and again adjourned on 06.02.2020 and at that stage, an affidavit in rejoinder was filed to the affidavit filed by the respondent on 17.05.2018. The matter was thereafter, adjourned from time to time and was finally concluded on 19.02.2020. 17. For the forgoing reasons, the Court is not inclined to exercise in favour of the petitioner for release of grant. The petition therefor deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed.