IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25443 of 2009 BETWEEN: Papuri Ravanamma and others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of A.P. rep by its Prl.Secretary, Tribal Welfare (Social Welfare) Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25443 of 2009 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to provide loans with subsidy, without insisting on surety and margin money, for an amount ranging between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- to each individual beneficiary to eke out their livelihood under various schemes of respondent nos.1, 2, 9 and 10. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe community and hail from Voletivaripalem, Pamuru and Jarugumalli Mandals in Prakasam District; they are landless poor women and are working as bonded labour to eke out their livelihood; the Government of Andhra Pradesh as well as the Union of India were implementing various schemes for the scheduled tribes through the social welfare departments all over the country; and, by way of subsidy, loans were being provided to them without insisting for surety and margin money. The grievance of the petitioners, in short, is that though they submitted a representation enclosing thereto a list of beneficiaries from 25.08.2008 onwards for providing financial assistance, no action has been taken by the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on instructions, would submit that from out of the 93 beneficiaries, who had sought financial assistance, 15 members have already been covered during the year 2008-09; 6 others have been covered during 2009-10 under bank linkage; during the next financial year 30 members from 3 mandals would be covered; and the remaining 42 members in 3 mandals would be covered in the financial year thereafter. Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it would suffice for the disposal of this writ petition if this Court were to record the submissions made, on instructions, by the learned Government Pleader. In as much as the respondents have already covered some of the beneficiaries under various schemes and have stated that the others (from out of the 93 beneficiaries) would be covered in the next financial year and the financial year thereafter, the relief sought for in this writ petition is redressed. The cause in the writ petition does not, therefore, survive. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 2nd March 2010 CVRK