IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20769 of 2000 Between: M/s Balaji Oil Mill, Rep by its Partner G Konda Reddy, S/o G Rami Reddy, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, G.A.D. (Law & Order-I), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Government of A.P., Rep by its District Collector Cuddapah District. 4 Government of A.P., Rep by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. .....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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner firm for the loss of the property occurred due to the riots that took place on 21/3/1994 as is evident in Crime No. 27/94 and also as per the Proceedings No. E/2153/94 dt. 6/6/99 of the fourth Respondent together with statement, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay compensation to the petitioner firm as was done in identical incidents. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.20769 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner is a partnership firm, which has its unit at Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. The allegations in the affidavit are that on 21.03.1994, there was a murder of son of former M.L.A, which resulted in large-scale riots and public disorder, resulting damages to several properties, including that of the petitioner-firm, and Crime No.27 of 1994 was registered by the police. The petitioner alleges that in said riots, the mill and the houses of the partners of the petitioner-firm were seriously damaged and they have suffered huge monetary loss. The petitioner thereupon made a representation, dated 04.08.1998, requiring the State to grant compensation/exgratia. Since no action has been taken on the said representation, it filed W.P.No.33459 of 1998 before this Court questioning the inaction of the respondents, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.112, GAD (Law & Order) Department, dated 20.06.1998. 02. By an order of this Court, dated 24.12.1998, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 04.08.1998, and dispose of the same keeping in view the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 20.06.1998, referred to above. 03. The petitioner alleges that thereafter the District Collector, Kadapa called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamudugu, and the Revenue Divisional Officer, after an elaborate enquiry, under his proceedings No.E/2153/94, dated 06.06.1999, submitted a detailed report, together with details of damages as annexure to the said report. The allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, including the report of the General Insurance Company and the police authorities, being available with the respondents, no action has been taken by them. The petitioner also alleges that a general communication was issued by the respondents to other claimants, but so far the petitioner is concerned, no action is forthcoming from the respondents. 04. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 05. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the inaction of the respondents remains uncontraverted, as there is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Government Pleader submits with regard to applicability of G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 20.06.1998, with respect to incident involved in this writ petition. However, in view of the directions already issued by this Court in W.P.No.33459 of 1998, dated 24.12.1998, directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon any of the submissions of the learned counsel. Since the Collector, Kadapa has already called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer and since it is stated that the report is already submitted with necessary details and supporting documents, it is desirable that the respondents consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation, dated 04.08.1998, as expeditiously as possible, as ten years have already gone. 06. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.33459 of 1998, dated 24.12.1998, as directed above, latest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________ Vilas V.Afzulpurkar, J Dt.27.11.2008. VGB