THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8102 OF 2010 Dated 13th April, 2010 Between: Master Poonam Reddy and another …Petitioner And The General Manager, Bharath Dynamics Ltd And another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P.Sridhar Rao Counsel for the respondents: Ms V.Uma Devi The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of fee concession on par with the children of Bharath Dynamics Limited (BDL) employees as per Clause- II of Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.01.1991 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are represented by Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, who is their father and natural guardian. According to the father of the petitioners, his ancestral property standing in the name of his brother K.Jagan Mohan Reddy was acquired for the purpose of establishment of BDL in the year 1986 and that on 06.03.1993 the Revenue Divisional Officer has addressed letter to respondent No.1 stating that the enquires made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru revealed that Sri K.Srinivas Reddy was the owner of the land along with his brother and therefore, respondent No.1 was requested to include the name of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy in the Land Displaced Persons (LDP) list of Bhanoor Village. The petitioners placed reliance on Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.01.1991, and pleaded that at the time of acquisition of the lands for establishment of BDL, it was inter alia agreed that the children of LDPs will be treated on par with the children of BDL employees regarding payment of school fees in BDL School. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said benefit is not extended to their family. In my opinion, the petitioners ought to have approached respondent No.1 for extension of the said benefit. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have first approached respondent No.1 before filing the present writ petition. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.1 along with relevant material. If on the basis of such material, respondent No.1 is satisfied that the petitioners fall within the LDP family category, he shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the benefit envisaged in Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.01.1991 is extended to the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10428 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 13th April, 2010 vrn