IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24629 of 2001 Between: 1 H.A. Bheemakka W/o Late H.A. Hanumanthappa Pulicherla Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2 H.A. Parusharam W/o Late H.A. Hanumanthappa Pulicherla Village, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. Rep. by his Mother i.e. 1st Respondent ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Commissioner, Relief & E.O. Revenue (Relief.I) Department Secretary to Government, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ananthapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an apprpriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering and granting exgratia on petitioner's applications under the "APADBANDHU SCHEME" formulated by the Govt. of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No. 694 Revenue (Relief Department dated 29-9-2000 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of fundamentals rights guaranteed under articles 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass appopriate orders on petitioners representations dated 14-9-2000 and 4-3-2001 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The two petitioners are aggrieved that the respondents have not granted them ex-gratia under the “Apadbandu Scheme” formulated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 694 Revenue (Relief I) Department dated 29-9-2000. They seek a consequent direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on their representations dated 14-9-2000 and 4-3-2001 for grant of mandatory relief under the scheme. The 1st petitioner’s husband, while working in the fields and handling an electric motor during the course of agricultural operations, died on account of electrocution on 1-9-2000. In the circumstances, the 1st petitioner and on behalf of the 2nd petitioner her minor child, applied for ex-gratia under the Apadbandu Scheme evolved by the State of Andhra Pradesh and currently under administration and dispensation of orders in G.O.Ms.No. 694 Revenue (Relief I) Department dated 29-9-2000. The petitioners made an initial representation and reiterated the request by representations dated 4-3- 2001, 25-6-2001 and 21-8-2001. There being no response, the writ petition is filed. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit admitting the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband by electrocution on 1-9-2000. However, in response to the petitioners grievance, the 3rd respondent states that under the Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Andhra Pradesh and the New India Assurance Company Limited which was the canalizing agency for the Apadbandu policy, the time for lodging the claim for ex-gratia expired by 1-4-2001, whereas the petitioners applied for sanction of the amount on 29-6- 2001. In the circumstances, the petitioners were granted relief by sanctioning an amount of Rs. 5000/- under National Family Benefit Scheme vide proceedings Rc.( C ) 454/2001 dated 17-10-2001 of the answering respondent. The respondent states that there is no time limit for sanction of monetary relief under the National Family Benefit Scheme but the petitioners representation for ex-gratia under the Apadbandu Scheme having been made beyond the time limit fixed in the Memorandum of Understanding between the State Government and the New India Assurance Company Limited was not entertainable. Though the counter-affidavit was filed in December 2001, there is no affidavit by the petitioners in rebuttal of the assertions therein. In the light of the rival pleadings, the petitioners have not made out a case for grant of ex-gratia under Apadbandu Scheme and the petitioners have already been granted benefit under National Family Benefit Scheme. Hence no further orders are required. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 15th April, 2009. GRR