APHC010419292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22353/2025 Between: 1. BOYA LAKSHMISWAMY, S/O LATE KADIRAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O CHAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE INSTITUTION OF LOKAYUKTA OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, D.NO.96/3-72-124-1, PRASAD'S COMPLEX, SANTOSH NAGAR COLONY, KURNOOL-518006. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE (DISASTER MANAGEMENT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI-522238. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI-522238. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ANANTHAPUR-515001 ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate order or direction to the Respondents 2 to 4 in Denial of payment statutory exgratia relief of Rs.8.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Eight lakhs only) @ Rs.4.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Four lakhs only) per deceased to the Petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Revenue (D.M-I) Department, dt04-12-2015, despite of clear clarification of the Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Guntakal and Civil Assistant Surgeons, who conducted post-mortem over the dead bodies clearly clarified that the victims died due to Cardiac 2 Arrest is due to Thunderbolt Strike, who is the competent authority to certify cause of death as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Revenue (DM.II) Department, dt.04-12-2015 be declared as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural law and justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to pay the exgratia relief of Rs.8.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Eight lakhs only) @ Rs.4.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Four lakhs only) per deceased to the Petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Revenue (D.M-I) Department, Dt 04-12-2015, within a time bound period, and pass IA 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 the Respondents 2 to 4 to pay the exgratia relief of Rs.8.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Eight lakhs only) @ Rs.4.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Four lakhs only) per deceased to the Petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15,Revenue (D.M-I) Department, Dated:04-12- 2015, within a time bound period, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. -- 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 22353 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate order or direction to the Respondents 2 to 4 in Denial of payment statutory exgratia relief of Rs.8.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Eight lakhs only) @ Rs.4.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Four lakhs only) per deceased to the Petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Revenue (D.M-I) Department, dt.04-12-2015, despite of clear clarification of the Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Guntakal and Civil Assistant Surgeons, who conducted post-mortem over the dead bodies clearly clarified that the victims died due to Cardiac Arrest is due to Thunderbolt Strike, who is the competent authority to certify cause of death as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Revenue (DM.II) Department, dt.04-12-2015 be declared as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural law and justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to pay the exgratia relief of Rs.8.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Eight lakhs only) @ Rs.4.00 Lakhs only (Rupees Four lakhs only) per deceased to the Petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Revenue (D.M-I) Department, Dt 04-12-2015, within a time bound period and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that legal notice/representation was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the legal notice treating the same as representation, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. 3. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that: 4 Dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. 4. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." 5. Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice. 6. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner’s legal notice/representation dated 05.05.2025 must be considered by the 5 respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within eight weeks from the date the order is received. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 28.08.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:22353 of 2025 Date : 28.08.2025 SPP