( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions various DWCRA Groups (Development of Women and Children in rural Areas) are petitioners. They assail the proceedings dated 30. 6. 2004 of the District educational Officer (DEO), Warangal, whereby and whereunder as many as 26 private aided primary schools and upper primary schools were identified as implementing agencies for Midday Meal programme in the aided schools in the district with effect from 1. 7. 2004.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners in brief is that in November, 2002, the petitioners were selected as implementing agencies for midday Meal Programme in various educational institutions including private aided schools in Warangal District and without any allegation against them, they were removed in unfair manner. They also allege that on 20. 6. 2004, the DEO issued a notice to the petitioners, requiring them to show-cause as to why they should not be discharged as implementing agencies with effect from 30. 6. 2004. Though they submitted explanations, they were not duly considered and without any reasons, the impugned order was passed.

( 3 ) IN all these matters, this Court while admitting these Writ Petitions on 14. 7. 2004, 12. 7. 2004 and 16. 7. 2004 respectively passed interim orders suspending the proceedings. Some of the private aided educational institutions, which were identified as implementing agencies filed miscellaneous applications seeking impleadment in the matters. They have also filed applications for vacating the interim order. When these matters were listed before this Court, the matters were heard finally on 10. 9. 2004 with the consent of the parties. Again today, the matters are listed and this Court heard the submissions of learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri B. Ravinder Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

( 4 ) SRI A. Prabhakara Rao, and sri K. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners attacked the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same is violative of principles of natural justice and that the same is bad for non-disclosure of reasons. These contentions are refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader and sri S. V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the impleaded respondents.

( 5 ) BY impugned order, dated 30. 6,2004, as noticed supra as many as 26 private aided primary schools and upper primary schools were identified as implementing agencies. Curiously none of them has been impleaded as party respondent. As some of the impleaded parties represent all aided schools in a representative capacity, the matter is being considered on merits. It has not been denied that by a communication dated 20. 6. 2004, the petitioners were informed that as per Government orders in G. O. Ms. No. 94, Education (SE-Prog. 1) Department, dated 25. 11. 2003, when the Midday Meal programme is implemented in private aided schools, the Governing Body of private aided schools is responsible for implementing the scheme and therefore, the petitioners were asked as to why they should not be discharged. The petitioners in W. P. No. 11773 of 2004 submitted an explanation on the same day. The petitioners in other two writ petitions submitted joint explanation on 30. 6. 2004 and the same was allegedly received by the office of DEO.

( 6 ) FROM a reading of the impugned order, dated 30. 6. 2004, it becomes clear that the office of the DEO has not received any objections from any of the DWCRA groups of Hanamkonda and Warangal, thus allegation made by the petitioners that they submitted explanation to the show- cause notice, dated 20. 6. 2004 therefore stands disproved. Indeed admittedly the petitioners in W. P. Nos. l 1829and 12273 of 2004 made a representation only on 30. 6. 2004 and therefore, in all probability, the said representation was made after passing of the impugned order. Insofar as the W. P. No. 11773 of 2004 is concerned, the petitioners have not placed any material before this Court - by way of postal acknowledgment or postal receipt or of