THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.492 of 2002 Between: Laxmi Narayana Biyani, S/o.late Sitaram Biyani, Age 51 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Malakpet, Hyderabad. …Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.492 of 2002 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.12,75,000/- to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Rt.No.2429, General Administration (Law and Order-II), Department, dated 10.06.1998. 2. The case, in brief, of the petitioner is that he started manufacturing and binding various types of note books from the year 1976 after obtaining necessary permission and licence from the concerned authorities and was carrying on business in premises bearing Nos.23-1-389 to 391 at Alijakotla, near City Government High School, Hyderabad, located on the southern part of Hyderabad city, popularly known as ‘old city’, and gradually his reputation and business grew in a large volume, but due to the arson and looting that took place during the year 1998 in Hyderabad he also became a victim of vandalism as some miscreants had, during the intervening night of 10th and 11th June, 1998 set fire to his business premises and immediately, coming to know about the fact, he lodged a complaint on 11.06.1998 with the Inspector of Police, Moghulpura Police Station who registered it as a case in Crime No.148 of 1998. In that arson, goods worth more than Rs.7,75,000/- were burnt to ashes and the building was also badly damaged causing a loss of more than Rs.5,00,000/- to him and thus, he incurred a loss of more than Rs.12,75,000/- due to the said arson and so, he submitted a report to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 15.06.1998 with a copy to the Principal Secretary, General Administration (Law and Order-II). Based on his report, the officials of the A.P. State Electricity Board, Fire Department and Forensic Science Laboratory conducted inspection of the damaged premises and submitted reports on 29.06.1998, 30.06.1998 and 05.08.1998 respectively confirming that the incident resulting in loss to him occurred due to communal riots. Though the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.2429, General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department, dated 10.06.1998 granting ex gratia relief to all the affected persons in communal riots to an extent of 75% of the loss incurred by them, he was not extended that benefit and was granted a meager amount of Rs.1,28,126/- through a cheque dated 05.11.2001. In spite of his repeated representations, the remaining amount is not being paid to him. Hence, the writ petition. 3. On behalf of the respondents, the 4th respondent (Mandal Revenue Officer, Bahadurpura Mandal) filed her counter affidavit inter alia stating that communal riots occurred in the old city during 5th to 8th June, 1998, where, arson, looting and damage to several properties by anti-social elements took place. The incident of burning of the premises of the petitioner took place during the intervening night of 9th and 10th June, 1998 and the crime in that connection was registered on 11.06.1998. In view of the representation made, a team of officers consisting of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bahadurpura, the District Manager, Housing and the Executive Director, S.C. Corporation were asked to evaluate the loss incurred by the petitioner. They inspected the premises of the petitioner and reported that a loss of Rs.1,70,833.50 ps. occurred to the petitioner. So, as per the provisions contained in G.O.Rt.No.2429, dated 10.06.1998, an amount of Rs.1,28,126/- being 75% of the loss estimated by the Committee, was paid to the petitioner as ex gratia. The Evaluation Committee did not accept the claim of the petitioner relating to loss allegedly sustained by him and so, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted the relief sought for in this petition because all the contentions raised by the petitioner relating to the value of the goods allegedly stocked and the goods lost are questions of fact, which can be decided only after evidence is adduced by the parties relating to the goods that were there in the godown at the time of the incident of arson and their value. It cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner and the documents relied on by him. 5. KRISHNA REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[1] and CHINNAM PANDURANGAM v. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND OTHERS[2] relied on by the learned Counsel for petitioner have no application to the facts of this case. Principles laid down in administrative law would not apply to the facts of this case because petitioner is seeking ex gratia payment on the ground that his property is lost in the fire accident. Availability of the goods as stated by the petitioner and the value of those goods is disputed by the respondents. So the availability of the goods in the godown at the time of the incident and its value has to be first established by the petitioner, which is a question of fact, but not a question of law. 6. In fact, applicability of the G.O. relied on by the petitioner to the facts of this case is doubtful because as per the said G.O., ex gratia is payable only in respect of the incidents that occurred in the old city of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts between 5th and 8th June, 1998. The incident complained of by the petitioner did not take place between 5th and 8th June, 1998, but took place during the intervening night of 10th and 11th June, 1998. So the petitioner should consider himself fortunate for getting a relief of payment of more than Rs.1,00,000/- as ex gratia, though his case prima facie is not covered by the G.O. relied on by him. 7. If the petitioner feels that he is entitled to the benefit of the G.O. relied on by him, and that the Committee did not estimate the value of the property lost in the fire properly, his remedy is not by way of filing Writ Petition, because no statutory right vested in him is violated by the respondents. 8. So, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J.) Date: 31-01-2008 GS [1] 2005 (3) ALD 297 [2] 2007 (6) ALD 348 (F.B.)