Sri.Manthena Harichandra Vara Prasad Raju v. The State of Telangana

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein not processing the payment for the sheep units supplied as per requirement under SHEEP REARING DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (PROGRAM) (SRDS) for 6 (Six) units to the Petitioner despite agreeing that the payments are due from Respondents as illegal, besides in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to process the pending payment for 6 (Six) units of sheep supplied as per requirement under SHEEP REARING DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (PROGRAM) (SRDS) (SRDP) to the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 and 4 to process the pending payment for 6 units of sheep supplied as per requirement under SHEEP REARING DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (PROGRAM) (SRDS) to the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI E. VENKATA SIDDHARTHA Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 & 3: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLB SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVIDEVI WRIT PETITION NO .1t379 0F 2025 ORDIiR Heard leameC counsel foi the pctitionel and learned Govemment Pleader fbr Animal Husbandry appearing for respondent Nos.! and 3 anci leamed Govenl-rient Pleadcr tbr Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4. With the consent olall the parties, the wrii petition is being taken up lcr <iisposa.l at thc a"drnission stage itseif.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:- ''... to issue e rvrit. order or djrecti<,:r more particulatly olte in the nature of \\'rit of l'{andamus Cccii:rini: ihe action of the respondents more particularly Respoudeut Nos.l :lnd 4 herein not processing the pa),rnent for lhe shecp ur:its supplletl ::s per requirement iurder SFIEEP liEAIi.l t lG DEVE LOIJ N,I tiN i' :i C I IliI'lE ( PROGRAN'I) (SRDS)'q-',r 6 un;rs to the Petitiolrgl despite agiceing tirii the payrlleuts aro due lrom Rer;pcirdents as illegal. lresides itr ','iclaiir.rir t',1tbe principles ol natural justice and con:;eqleiltly diiect tir: li.csponcient No.i & 4 i.c itrocess iire pending payment for 5 unii:r of siicep supplicri as per requiremett't under SHEEP R.EARING DEVEi-OPivlilNT SCI{E}vlE (PROGRAivl) (SII.DS) (SRDP) to tht Petitioner anC. pass such other order cr orders."

3. Lean.recl cout:se! lor the petlt:cnei submits that the p'Jtitioner is i-n the business of sale a:rd suppl1' oi iivcstock for the States.cf Tciangana ald Alrdiil'a P:'acesir e. pef 1e rcq'.li.eliicrts. It is frn'ther s-'-rbmitteC ihai the ther-r Govemt:tc;tt of Tciarigaira i;':i[ introcir:ced a scllenie in the natne 2 WrP. No.14379 of2025 of Sheep I{earing Development Scheme (PROGRAM) (SRDS) for promoting and developing the traditional shepherd community, the Kurumas and Yadavas in Telangana.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with their officials have approached the petitioner and requested for supply of 6 units of sheep, (one unit consists of 20 female sheep and I male sheep). Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the same, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not made any paymenl to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed a copy of letter bearing Lr.Roc. No. 93 8 IP.TI/BL[/ 2024, dated I 9. I I .2024, obtained under RTI Act, wherein it is clearly stated that payment of 6 units of sheep is due to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in respect of clearance of due amount, the petitioner requested to clear the due amount for 6 units of sheep, but no payment has been made and hence, he prays this Court to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of the due amount to the petitioner in a time bound period. I

5. Leamed ( iovernment Pleader for Animal Husbandrl. and leamed Govemment Pleader for Revenue did not dispute the same and further submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the 3 W.P. No.14379 of 2025 case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. Recording the subrrission made by the leamed counsel appearing on either side and in view of the lact that payment in respect of 6 units ofsheep is due to the petitioner and having regard to the order passed by this Court iIr similar matter, this Court directs tl.re respondent authorities to make payment of 6 units of sheep dr.re to the petitioner b1, considering his i:equest, as e>rpeditiously as possible. plelerably within a period of fbur (C4) weeks fi'om the date o1'receipt ol'copy ol this order, if the petitionel is otherwise eligible ald the conditions are tret. The copy of proceedings be comrnunicated to the petiticner. Accordingiy, the wlit petition is clisposed of. No order as to costs.

8. I)cnding miso.:llaneous petitions. if ar:y. in this Writ Petition sltail stand cioseC. //TRUE copy// SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEcrloN brrtcen '/ Telangana. Department), State of Telangana, Hyderabad'

1. The Principal Secretary (Animal Husbandry'. Diary Development and Fishery z. iriS Fiin Jip6i Secretarv ineienuel, State of relanoana' Hvderabad' 3, The District VeterinariT''aiO" ni.,i#,ut- Hnsbandry +. ffrJoiitrict Collector, Nalqonda District, Telangana' s. d;-Cc'k;'srir E. VdltxnlA stoonRRrHR, Advocate toPUCl 6. i*[ dcdlo op rot fii;;i H;;b;ow, uUn court for the State of Telangana 7. iil;,tG-b 6F-r.i' Revenue, High courr for the State of Telangana at B. Two CD Copies -Officeri Nalgonda District' at HYderabad. [OUTI Hyderabad. [OUTI I To, MP BS \.v \ t HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 \ z, , * o (_.1 // ( ORDER WP.No.14379 of 2025 .,a:_:---__:!! ar(4 DY .$' / l-' !ft ,lu- Y(, s* $, \ 9;r -\l I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ t&- 6#