IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 24782 of 2002 Between: Onnajipet Ramulu, S/o. Sayanna, R/o. Thoompally Village, Sirikonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nizamabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any Order or direction or Writ or Writs more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying ex-gratia pursuient to the representation dt. 2.5.2002 is illegal, arbitrary and against to the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of the Art. 21 of The Constitution of India, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying ex-gratia pursuant to the representation, dated 02.05.2002, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is resident of Thoompally village, Sirikonda mandal, Nizamabad District and he belongs to Golla community and eking out his livelihood by grazing sheep and goats in his village and surrounding villages. While so, on 17.01.2000 at 8.30 P.M. a group of radicals (Janashakti Dalam) numbering 15 to 20 came to his village along with rifles, axes and sticks and called him to near Gram Panchayat office in his village and beat him with sticks and rifle butts indiscriminately and attempted to murder him alleging that he was a police informer, as a result of which he received fractures on his right hand and leg besides severe injuries on his body and became unconscious. It is stated that the petitioner is a poor and helpless person and he could not admit in the government hospital because of the fear of radical activities and therefore, he got treatment in the private hospital, but the fact of receiving injuries by the radical activities, is not in dispute. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled for ex-gratia for the radical activities, he being the poor person cannot be denied of the ex-gratia as per the existing policy of the government. A counter has been filed admitting the fact of receiving injuries by the petitioner to his right hand and leg which resulted in registering the case in Crime No.5 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 8(ii) of A.P. Public Security Act at Sirikonda Police Station and the investigation is pending. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was examined and his statement was recorded, but in spite of the request made by the police, the petitioner refused to get admitted in the government hospital and take treatment therein and therefore, he was not paid ex-gratia and accordingly he was intimated by the proceedings No.2/Ext/ANS/54/2000, dated 07.07.2000. A copy of the so-called intimation has not been filed along with the counter. But, it is stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 02.05.2002 was not at all received seeking ex-gratia of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, when there is no dispute with regard to causing injuries by the radicals to the petitioner on the ground that he was a police informer, there cannot be any justification on the part of the police in not paying the compensation in accordance with the policy of the government. Therefore, I am of the opinion that though the petitioner is treated in the private hospital, in view of the threat by the radicals, the petitioner is entitled for ex-gratia. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondents and on making such representation, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same in the light of the aforesaid observations within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:02.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}