IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8843 of 2009 Between: 1 G.Sreenivasulu S/o.Venkata Swamy R/o.Valmikipuram village & mandal Chittoor District 2 C.Parvathi W/o.C.Sreeramulu R/o.Valmikipuram village & mandal Chittoor District 3 R.Jyothi W/o.Jayaram R/o.Valmikipuram village & mandal Chittoor District 4 R.Nagarathana W/o.Amaranath R/o.Valmikipuram village & mandal Chittoor District 5 V.Venkatalakshmi W/o.Sreeramulu R/o.Valmikipuram village & mandal Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District 2 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Valmikipuram, Valmikipuram mandal, Chittoor 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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the select of beneficiaries under Indiramma phase III programme of Valimikipuram by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary,and contrary to the instructions issued by the Government and consequently direct the respondents to select the beneficiaries as per the guidelines issued by the Government and further direct the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for providing house sites under Indiramma Phase III and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: CH.VEDAVANI(SC FOR MPP AND ZPP,RAYALASEEMA) The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.8843 of 2009 ORDER: The Government framed a scheme called as ‘INTINTA INDIRAMMA PROGRAMME’ with a view to provide various facilities to deserving poor. The petitioners are residents of Valmikipuram village and Mandal, Chittoor District. They state that they are very poor and dependent upon their manual labour. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 1 and 2 did not select them as beneficiaries and on the other hand, several persons who are otherwise ineligible were included in the list of beneficiaries. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 4. Having introduced this scheme, the Government had stipulated the parameters for selection of beneficiaries. This Court cannot express any definite opinion as to the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners to be selected as beneficiaries. It is for the respondents 1 and 2 to examine the case of the petitioners. Further, it is not known as to whether the scheme has been launched at all in the village, and if so, the stage thereof. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to submit a representation pointing out their grievance to the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents shall examine the same and take necessary steps within two months from the date of receipt their representation. The result of such examination shall be communicated to the petitioners within that time. No costs. ___________________ 28th April 2009 KVR