THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12316 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to release Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only) under Aapathbandhu Insurance Scheme with bank rate interest to the petitioner herein from 12.09.2000 till the date of payment, by holding the action of the respondents herein in not doing so as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.” The Government of Andhra Pradesh launched a Social Security Scheme, namely, Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (Apadhbandhu Scheme) by entering into an agreement with New India Assurance Company Limited (NIAC). At the first instance, the agreement was entered into for a period of one year commenced from 02.10.1998 to 01.10.1999. Thereafter, the said scheme was continued for one more year commenced from 02.10.1999 to 01.10.2000 with certain modifications. As per the said scheme, the insurance coverage is made applicable to the families, which are below poverty line, in case of accidental death and is provided to adults in the age group of 18 to 69 years as per the Memorandum Of Understanding entered into by the Government with NIAC. Further, the total coverage was restricted to a maximum number of 2000 deaths in a year and the premium payable by the Government was Rs.5.00 Crores for the scheme period. Restricted 2000 number of claims was distributed to the districts of Andhra Pradesh and so far, Mahabubnagar District is concerned, target was 110 claims. In this case, the husband of the petitioner died in a road accident in the district limits of Kurnool on 05.03.2000. On the claim made by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned to her, who is the wife of the deceased, by proceedings bearing No.D4/6501/2000, dated 12.09.2000, issued by the second respondent - Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar District. When NIAC was addressed to reimburse the said amount for payment of the same to the petitioner, it was returned with an objection that no objection was required from the district authorities of Kurnool. After getting no objection, when the claim was referred to, it was not approved on the ground that it has already exceeded the target of 110 claims in the District of Mahabubnagar. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reason or justification for denying the insurance coverage to the petitioner in spite of the sanction proceedings issued by the second respondent on 12.09.2000. It is submitted that if there is any delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner should not be deprived of the said amount. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent. In the counter-affidavit, while referring to the particulars of the Scheme, it is stated that the answering respondent has sanctioned ex gratia for 179 cases including the petitioner’s claim for the period from 02.10.1999 to 01.10.2000. When the claims were referred to NIAC for release of the amount, it has released the amount to 110 cases and stopped release on reaching 2000 cases at State level. It is further stated that the amount could not be paid to the petitioner, as NIAC has not released the amount in 69 cases including the petitioner’s claim in view of completion of target with it. It is also stated that Apadhbandhu Scheme, which is tied up with NIAC, is for limited cases, and no excess sanctions are permitted by the Government. At the outset, in this writ petition, it is to be noticed that though the petitioner is claiming the amount as per Apadhbandhu Scheme, which was introduced by the Government by entering into an agreement with NIAC, such insurance company is not made party respondent. From a perusal of the said scheme itself, it is very clear that it is restricted to 2000 number of claims only. While it is true that the sanction proceedings were issued by the second respondent for an amount of Rs.1 lakh in respect of the claim of the petitioner, when the same was referred to NIAC, it was returned with certain objections, one of them is, non-production of no objection certificate from the authorities of Kurnool District, as the accident occurred in the district limits of Kurnool and the petitioner submitted her claim before the authorities of Mahabubnagar District, where she resides. Be that as it may, by the time all necessary certificates were furnished, the claim was not accepted by NIAC on the ground that it has already reached the target of 2000 cases at State level. As per the said scheme, no contributions are made by the individuals and to provide insurance coverage to the victims of below poverty line families in case of accidental death in the family, as a welfare measure, the Government entered into the agreement with NIAC and introduced the scheme. When the scheme was restricted to 2000 number of claims only and when NIAC has already approved such number of claims, the petitioner cannot claim for payment of the amount as a matter of right. When it is the case of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is in excess of restricted claims as per the scheme, very sanction proceedings issued by the Government will not give any right to the petitioner to claim in the absence of accepting such claim by the insurance company, for payment of amount. In any event, as NIAC is not even made party respondent in this writ petition, no directions, which run contrary to the agreement entered into by the Government with NIAC, can be issued by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for issuance of directions as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th JANUARY, 2011. kvni