IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14945 of 2007 Between: Malireddy Ananthalakshmi & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector-cum-Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation, East Godavari at kakinada & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14945 of 2007 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in deleting the names of the petitioners from the list of beneficiaries selected for the purpose of construction of pucca houses under Indiramma Scheme in R.B. Kothuru Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to delete their names from the list of beneficiaries prepared in the Grama Sabha held on 10.02.2006. In the Grama Sabha meeting held on 10.02.2006, a list of eligible beneficiaries under the housing scheme called “Indiramma Scheme” for R.B. Kothuru Village was prepared. The said list, comprising 134 members including the petitioners, was forwarded to the District Collector, who approved the same. On the ground that 46 members of the said beneficiaries were not willing to have the house sites and get the houses constructed, a proposal was made for substitution of the said persons with fresh beneficiaries. The petitioners therefore filed the present writ petition questioning the said move on the part of the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, Peddapuram, the fact that the petitioners are among the beneficiaries identified for the abovementioned housing scheme is admitted. He further stated that on 01.06.2007, a written communication was received from the District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada along with a letter of the MLA, Peddapuram with an endorsement of the District Incharge Minister seeking substitution of 46 names, that in the copy of the letter addressed by the Indiramma Village Committee, the President and other members informed that since the writ petitioners have not agreed for the location of the house sites, the proposal to substitute their names with the names of others was submitted. At the hearing, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proposals to delete the petitioners’ names is actuated by extraneous consideration and that the petitioners never expressed their unwillingness to have the benefit of house sites. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the issue of substitution of the names in the beneficiaries list is still under consideration and that no final decision is taken as yet and that therefore the writ petition is premature. The fact that proposals were made for modifying the beneficiaries’ list by deleting 44 persons identified as beneficiaries is admitted by the respondents. They also admitted that the petitioners are among the said 46 persons, whose names are sought to be deleted. The only ground on which the proposed deletion is undertaken is that the petitioners and some others are not willing to take the sites as identified. The very fact that the petitioners approached this Court opposing the said move clearly shows that they are interested in continuing to be the beneficiaries under the housing scheme. In the light of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that a final decision is not yet taken on the deletion of the petitioners’ names from the beneficiaries list, I refrain from giving any conclusive finding on the issue raised by the petitioners on merits. It will suffice, if respondent No.1 is directed to enquire into the issue as to whether the petitioners are willing to continue as beneficiaries under the housing scheme. Respondent No.1 shall summon all the petitioners by sending individual notices to them and record their statements. If the petitioners express their willingness to continue as beneficiaries under the scheme, respondent No.1 shall not make any changes in the beneficiaries list already finalized in the Gram Sabha meeting held on 10.02.2006. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18817 of 2007 and WVMP.No.3046 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.04.2008 ES