(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondent authorities in not releasing food bills to the Petitioner Society pertaining to Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) program from October 2018 to December, 2023 to a tune of Rs. 23,23,930/- (In words. Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Rupees Only) and consequently direct the Respondents to release and pay the Food Bills to the Petitioner forthwith or to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider and dispose the Representation dt. 26.03.2024 made by the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition or to pass)

1. The Petitioner/Society is aggrieved by the non-payment of the bills towards the food expenses for the inmates of the Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) Programme from October, 2018 to December, 2023. The outstanding amount payable to the petitioner has been quantified at Rs.23,23,930/-.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was running the Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) people and it is a non- profit organization. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.10.2018 was entered into the 2nd respondent for providing 50 Shelter-less people in Gooty Town. The terms and conditions in MOU therein mandated certain obligations on part of the petitioner to be taken care in the interest of the inmates. As per MOU, 90% of the expenditure towards the Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) was to be borne by the 2nd respondent. The MOU was initially for a period of one year and was subsequently extended from time to time and the petitioner conducted the said Home till the year 2023.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner requested for release of the Food Bills and at that point of time, the 2nd respondent got inspected the facility of the petitioner through the Project Director, MEPMA, Ananthapur and the Officer who conducted the inspection and submitted his report on 03.03.2020 with certain lapses which were addressed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that after issuance of the inspection report, the respondents have further renewed the period of running the Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) by another period of two years.

4. It is submitted that on 02.04.2025, the respondents submitted before this Court that certain bills were admitted and sought time to place on record the details of such admitted bills. However, no instructions are filed till date. The claim of the respondents’ is that they have been paid an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to the petitioner is not true and correct. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- was paid to the various facilities across the state towards operation and maintenance charges. The petitioner is specifically claiming the expenditure incurred for supplying the food to the inmates.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that, after completion of the inspection by the competent authority, a report was submitted to the 2nd respondent duly inviting several lapses which were addressed by the petitioner. The report dated 03.03.2020 categorically indicates that an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- is the balance amount due payable to the petitioner as on that date and that the same was required to be paid without any further delay. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.01.2024 seeking permission to close down the Shelter for Urban Homeless as they are not able to sustain the expenditure and that the respondent be permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record.

7. As seen from record, the respondents have not placed material on record to show that the respondents have conducted an enquiry with regard to the existence or otherwise of Sri Kandukuri Hotel. No enquiry has also been conducted on the bills submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is claiming the payment of food bills for the period during which the petitioner had conducted the said Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) facility at Gooty Town. Except for denial of the petitioner’s claim and apart from the inspection report dated 03.03.2020, there is no other material on record to deny the claim of the petitioner. The respondents have also failed to mention in their counter under what circumstances, the petitioner could be denied the payment of the food bills.

8. Periodical inspections and the inspection reports pertaining to the non- conduction of said unit by the petitioner, could have, to some extent, substantiated the stand of the respondents. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner denying or disputing the food bills submitted by the petitioner. The respondents have kept quiet and slept over the issue till filing of the present writ petition. Disputing the payment of bills raised by the petitioner towards the food expenses without conducting any enquiry cannot be substantiated by this Court. In absence of any material which would deny the payment due payable to the petitioner, the petitioner has already closed down its unit at Gooty Municipality and nothing is placed on record to dispute the food bills submitted by the petitioner except for a vague statement that the said hotel does not exist.

9. The enquiry report, if any, relating to the said finding has not placed before this Court. That apart no notice was issued to the petitioner while conducting any enquiry with regard to the bills submitted. There is no reason for denying payment to the petitioner/Society towards food expenses, particularly when the maintenance charges have admittedly been paid.

10. Assuming the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner/society never conducted the unit as per the terms of MOU, and then there is no reason as to why the operation and the maintenance charges were paid to the petitioner. It is also equally surprising as to why the food bills for the entire five-year period would not be paid without any valid reason.

11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the claim of the petitioner and release the payments due, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.