These writ petitions are directed against the orders issued by the Social Welfare Department/District Collector/Tahsildar under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act 2 of 1864) to recover money due to the Government from the petitioners in the respective writ petitions. Facts in issue, contentions and issues for consideration being same in all the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by common order.

2. Facts giving rise to institution of these writ petitions are as under:

(A) Petitioners in all the writ petitions are the managements of private colleges running various courses like Intermediate, degree and professional courses. For the sake of convenience, facts narrated and material papers filed in WP No.17164 of 2009 are referred to. Petitioners charge fee from the students prosecuting courses in their institutions. As a social welfare measure, Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme, whereunder Government reimburses fee payable to private colleges for prosecuting courses of study administered in the private colleges by the students belonging to Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Backward Classes communities. For the period commencing from 1998-99 to 2001-02 certain amounts were paid by the State Government directly to the privately run institutions which include petitioners towards fee payable by the students prosecuting the courses of study offered by these institutions and belonging to SC, ST and BC categories. The amount granted by the Government was received by the petitioners during the said academic sessions.

(B) In April, 2008, the District Collector, Hyderabad District issued notices to the managements of the private colleges including the petitioners bringing to their notice that during the academic years between 1998-99 and 2001-02, excess amount was paid to them than the actual amount of fee payable by the students belonging to SC, ST and BC categories. One such notice is filed as EX.Pl at page 15 in the paper book filed in WP No.17164 of 2009. Statement at Page 2 of the said notice, shows that as against the fee fixed in Column No.2, higher amount was paid. For example, for the academic year 1998-99, the fee fixed by the college was only Rs.720/- whereas Rs.2,800/- was paid, thus, an amount of Rs.2080 in excess was paid to Siddthartha Degree College for Women, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. In the said manner, for four academic years excess amounts paid to Siddthartha Degree College for Women/first petitioner in WP No.17164 of 2009 were quantified as Rs.1,59,900/-. Thus, college was directed to refund the said amount.

(C) In response to the notice dated 3.4.2008, the first petitioner college submitted its explanation dated 16.4.2008, which reads as under:

"In compliance to your letter for remittance of excess amount sanctioned (as per the given list) from 1998-99 to 2001-2002. We hereby bring to your kind notice that the amount sanctioned to the number of students specified has been dispersed to the students in the same years noted and its highly impossible on our part to remit the excess amount from the students, as they have already left our institution after the completion of their course.

(D) Similar stand is expressed by the managements of the colleges concerned. Thereafter proceedings were initiated under Revenue Recovery Act, 1894 (for short the Act, 1894). Initially Section 8 notice was issued. In response to Section 8 notice, similar explanations as above were offered. Since the amounts payable to the Government and demanded by the District Collector was not paid, Distraint order dated 28.7.2009 was passed. Against recovery of sum due to Government three writ petitions are instituted. One such distraint order is filed as Ex.P5 at page 24 along with WP No.17164 of 2009.

Distraint Order (Section-8) A.P. Act II of 1864

(Revenue Department)

No.C/699/07 Office of the Tahsildar

Marredpally Mandal

Smt. N. Radhaki Ramani, Deputy Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandai, Hyderabad District is authorised to distraint th