THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.18030 of 2006 Date: 12.10.2009 Between: Mereddy Ranga Reddy … Petitioner And The Government of A.P. and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.18030 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for granting pension under the Andhra Pradesh Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1979, as arbitrary, illegal and for extraneous considerations and contrary to the said Rules and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting pension under the said Rules. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had participated in Anti Nizam Government movement for merger of Hyderabad state into India Union. For the acts committed by him against the Nizam Government, a criminal case was filed against him in C.C. No.17 and 18 of 1357 Fasli, before the Munsif Magistrate, Nalgonda, under Section 34 Tahafuse and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment of two years on 20.04.1357 Fasli. Initially, he was lodged in district jail, Nalgonda and later transferred to central prison, Hyderabad to under go remaining period of sentence. He further submitted that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No.25 Revenue (F.F.) Department dated 04.01.1979 framing the Rules namely The Andhra Pradesh Freedom Fighters Pension Rules for consideration of applications and granting pensions to the eligible freedom fighters under the state funds. As per the Rule 5 of the said Rules the petitioner is eligible for consideration of his application and for granting the pension. Therefore, he made an application to the 1st respondent for granting pension under the said Rules, way back in the year 1979. Along with the application he enclosed the certificate No.305/Nlg/81 dated 21.02.1981 issued by the Superintendent District Jail, Nalgonda stating that he was admitted in the Jail on 22.04.1357 Fasli on conviction by the Munsif Magistrate, Miryalaguda under Section 34 Tabafuse and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for two years on 20.04.1357 Fasli in C.C. No.17/18/1357 Fasli. It is his further case that the 1st respondent vide Memo No.5255/FF.II/A2/79 dated 18.09.1992 rejected his application on the ground that he did not produce valid documentary evidence in support of his claim as required under the Rules. Thereafter, he made several representations to the respondent with a request to reconsider his case and he also got issued legal notice to the 1st respondent. Eventually, the 1st respondent called the report from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent having kept the case for more than one year by letter dated 23.07.2006 forwarded his case to the 1st respondent and now the matter is pending before the 1st respondent. Being a senior most citizen, having waited for several years, he constrained to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition. No counter has been filed by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that earlier his case was rejected by the 1st respondent for want of sufficient evidence but it appears that the petitioner made available to the 1st respondent sufficient evidence. However, in the process of calling for the report from the District Collector, Nalgonda, report was called from the District Collector, Hyderabad, which resulted for negating the case of the petitioner but thereafter the necessary report was called from the District Collector, Nalgonda, who sent the report vide his letter dated 23.07.2006 to the 1st respondent and the same is pending with the 1st respondent. As the 1st respondent is competent for passing necessary orders granting the pension under the provisions of the said scheme and the petitioner is aged about 93 years since no orders have been passed by the 1st respondent considering the case of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court with the instant writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, taking note of the fact that though the matter is pertains to the year of 2006 no counter has been filed by the respondents, so far, therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction: Since the report is already forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, who is competent authority to pass appropriate orders granting pension, and the same is pending with him, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 12-10-2009 LSK