IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P.No.22439 of 2008 and W.P.No.1396 of 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 22439 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Maruthi Prasad S/o. Satyanarayana Rao R/o. 1-74-16, Prasadnagar, Kothapet, Chirala, Ongole, Prakasam District – 523 001. 2 K.B.T. Sundari Devi W/o. K. Maruthi Prasad R/o. 1-74-16, Prasadnagar, Kothapet, Chirala, Ongole, Prakasam District – 523 001. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. - 523001. 2 The District Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The S.H.O., II - Town Police Station, Chirala, Prakasam District. 4 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly the writ of Mandamus declare inaction of the 1st respondent to dispose the application dt. 26.05.2008 for solatiuam of Rs.25,000/-. In the hit and run case in which the petitioner's son Ravi Prasad died on 01.01.2007 in accordance with the solatium scheme 1989 made under Section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as illegal, irregular and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose the petitioners application dt. 26.05.2008 for compensation with in a reasonable period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass such further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO : 1396 of 2009 Between: 1 K. Maruthi Prasad S/o. Satyanarayana Rao R/o. 1-74-16, Prasad Nagar, Kothapet, Chirala, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. - 523 001. 2 K.B.T. Sundari Devi @ K.B.T. Sundari W/o. K. Maruthi Prasad R/o. 1-74-16, Prasad Nagar, Kothapet, Chirala, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. - 523 001. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The District Collector Ongole Prakasam Dist. - 523 001. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly the writ of mandamus declare the inaction of the respondent in not processing the application for solatium under solatium scheme 1989 framed who Under Section 163 of M.V. Act 1988 pending finalization of W.P.NO.22439/08, communicated through his endorsement in R.C.C2/691 dt. 05-01-2009 of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside R.C.C2/691/2008 dt.5-1-2009 and direct the respondent to process the application for compensation without reference to W.P. No. 22439/08. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased boy who died in a motor vehicle accident on 1.1.2007. They submitted an application before the 1st respondent on 27.5.2008 seeking compensation under the Solatium Scheme, 1989, which was framed under the provisions of Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of their son under ‘hit and run’ cases. Since no action has been taken on their representation, they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22439 of 2008 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent – District Collector, Ongole to dispose of their application dated 26.5.2008 for granting solatium of Rs.25,000/- as per Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . By endorsement dated 25.11.2008, the 1st respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application is filed with a delay of more than 4 months 27 days. The said endorsement has been challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.1396 of 2009. Later on, the petitioners filed another application stating that as per Clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme, no limitation is prescribed for presenting the application and, therefore, rejection of their application on the ground that the same is a belated one cannot be sustained. It is stated that due to the pendency of W.P.No.22439 of 2008, no orders could be passed on the said representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue, Home and Transport. Admittedly Sub-Clause (2) of Clause 20 of the Scheme is omitted with effect from 25.4.2000. Before its omission, as per the said sub- clause, an application seeking compensation shall be made within a period of six months from the date of accident provided that an application made after six months but not after 12 months from the date of the accident may be accepted by the Claims Enquiry Officer, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to condone the delay. But since the said sub-clause has been omitted with effect from 25.4.2000, there cannot be any objection for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st respondent – District Collector, Ongole to consider the application of the petitioners seeking solatium for the death of their son on 1.1.2007 by an unknown motor vehicle, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.19.2.2009 Note: Furnish cc in one week. msv