✦ High Court of India · 07 Jul 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Jul 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
07 Jul 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,267 words

..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order/direction or any appropriate writ, more particurarry one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents in not-paying exgratia rerief of Rs.6.00 Lakhs onry (Rupees Six rakhs onry) from state Disaster Response Fund to the petitioner, for the death of her husband Siripelli Mallesh, s/o posharu, due to Thunderbort on 02-07- 2019, despite of the sanctioned and the funds rereased by the Government through G.o.Rt.No.1g, Revenue (D.M-r) Dept, Dr.2g-03-202s sr No,2(2) and BRo No.248, Finance (EBS-vll) Department, Dated.ls-02-2025, even after rapse of considerabre time, be declared as iflegar, arbitrary, vioration of principres of naturar raw Et justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution and consequenfly to direct a the Respondents to pay exgratia relief of Rs.6.00 lakhs only (Rupees Six lakhs only) to the Petrtioner, as per G.O.Rt.No.19, Revenue (D.tV-l) Department, DT.29_ 03-2025 and BRO No 24B, Finance (EBS-VIl) Departm€ nt, Dated.l5_02-2025. within a trme bound perrod. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit frre'j in support of the petition, the High coL rt may be preased to direct the Respondents to pay exgratia rerief of Rs.6.00 ra khs onry (Rupees srx lakhs only) to the petrtioner, as per G O.Rt.No.19, Revenu: (D.M_l) Department, DT29-03-2025 and BRO No248, Finance (EBS_VIt) Deprrtment, Dated,15_02_ 2025, within a time bound period, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR FINANCE & PLANNtNG The Court made the following: ORDER a r-'\ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19139 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is irled praying this Court to declare the action of the respondent in not paying ex gratia relief of Rs.6.OO lakhs to the petitioner for the death of her husband on O2.O7 .2019 due to "thunderbolt", despite of the sanction and release of funds by the Government through G.O.Rt.No.19, Revenue (DM-I) department, dated 29.O3.2025, even after lapse of considerable lime, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stated that the petitioner's family is eking out Lheir livelihood by doing agriculture. The petitioner's husband by name Siripelli Mallesh S/o. Pochalu, aged about 48 years, died on O2.O7.2O19 due to hit by "Thunderbolt", while he was grazing the goats in the outskirts of Kandenakunta Viliage. It is further stated that the State Government with a laudable object had issued G.O.Ms.No.2, Revenue (DM) Department, dated

19.O7.2018, wherein the Government enhanced the ex gratia to the poor and marginal farmers and others from Rs.5O,0001 to Rs.6.0O iakhs. It is further stated that since there is no earning member in the family to eke out her livelihood, the petitioner 2 (]VBI{. J wp 19 139 2025 made an application for grant of ex gratia a ltcl thc said application was forwarded to the Gover rntent uide Lr.No.D3/ti57 l)O24, dated 06.12.2024. It is furth'r stated that considerintl thc policy enunciated by thc Governr rcttt and the entitlemen'- of thc petitioner, tltc Governmetlt lrad issued G.O.Rt.No.19, dated 29.O3.2025 and the nirnre ol the petitioner's husband was shown at Sl.No.2. Thc grievance of the petitio;rer- rs that though thc said G.O. rvas sstrecl in thc month of Marcl.r, 2025, the respondent author tics <lid not release the saicl ex gratia amount. Hence, this writ l)ctitiun.

3. Conside rcd the submissions made by the lee rne d counsel for the parties and r.r,ith their consent this writ pet ition is being disposed oI at the admission stage. 4 . Learned ,rounsel for the pclitioner has sl brlittt:d tha I though tl-rc (iovernment has already identrllt'tl various benehciarir:s in tl're entire State o[ Telanga and tL t: I)etitioner's husband rrame rl,as found in the list of beneficiar cs at Sl.No.2 and lrxed the ex gratia amount of Rs.6.OO la <hs, but the respondents did not releerse the said amount. 3 CVBR, J Wp 19139 2025

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning has not disputed the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the ex gratia amount of Rs.6.OO lakhs for the death of her husband.

6. As seen from the record, the Government, as a policlr decision, has identified various persons for grant of ex gratia in terms of G.O.Rt.No. 19, dated 29.O3.2025. The husband of thc petitioner died in the year, 2019 and hve years thereafter, the respondents have considered for payment of ex gratia uide letter, dated 06. 12.2024 and basing on the said letter, G.O.Rt.No. i9, dated 29.O3.2O25 was issued. Even after lapse of three months the respondent authorities have not released the said ex gratia amount or deposited into the account of the petitioner. If the State has not released the ex gratia amount, the very object of the State for enunciating the policy for payment of ex gratia and also the purpose of issuance of the Government Orders for the beneht of the downtrodden community or below poverty line to eke out their livelihood would be defeated. It is very unfortunate that even after a period of seven years and even after issuing the G.O.RI. in the month of March, 2025, the petitioner was not paid the ex gratia , I 4 CVBR, J Wp 19139 202.5 amount. I(eeping in mind the very object of the policy being enunciated by the Government under various Government Orders, this Court deems it appropriate to dispos,: ol this writ pctition dirccting rcspondent Nos.1 to 3 to release rhc ex gratia amount gr€rnted in G.O.Rt.No.19, dated 29.O3.2O2i, as early as possible not later than one month from the date o'rcceipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the abovc ohservations, this Writ petitiorr is disposed of. There sl'rall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequcl, thc miscellaneous petitions qer dir-rg, if any, . shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAo ^T$',ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Prin:ipal Secretary to Government, Finance Dep.trtment, Government of r eransa,a, state of reiransana ieir;d;;;' #;"ff#il nvoenaaao_ ' ffirtfl8li:L:?:Hfy to government, Revenue (Dr.aster Manasement) nt of Telangana, Telangana. Sccretariat, ._r_..._...,, H'DERABAD_ 5OOO22 3. The Distrct Collector. O I n te g ra te d D i st ri ct orri ces c ";; b;, JAt ii^"i"l .3l"r r'f 5fJ,g?'5:P,:1 ", Telangan;r. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRt HARI KISHAN KUD|KALA, Advocate. JOPUCI 5. Two CCs to Gp FOR FTNANCE & PLANNING, High Court for the State of 6. Two CD C:opies. BS \g/ BSK ,---f:L.& I i I HIGH COURT DATED:07 tOTt2O2S 1 ,. -: --- 13o .\ o), ) Y t ORDER WP.No.19139 of 2O2S 12 sEp 2E '::.'., ; ,1 =itC: 'l :'it ,.*'j'/' ,{ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 3

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments