1 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 APHC010485182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26699/2026 Between: 1. MIRIYALA ANURADHA,, W/O. SRINIVASARAO, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H. NO. 40-1-21 B, OPP REKHA STUDIO MIRIYALAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503. 3. THE DIRECTOR, STATE SGSW (SWARNA GRAMA AND SWARNA WARD) DEPARTMENT, PLOT NO. 11 AND 12, NIRMNNA BHAVAN, APIIC COLONY, JAWAHAR AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA- 520007. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, SGSW (SWARNA GRAMA AND SWARNA WARD), PRAKASAM BHAVAN, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE- 523001. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMAN DEVELOPMENT CHILD AND DISABLED WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE- 523001. 9. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001 2 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 ...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 toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in failing to delete the name of Lakkenaboina Lakkinaboyina Koteswara Rao, S/o Peddaiah, from the household mapping of the petitioners family at House No. 40-1 21 B, Miriyalapalem, Ongole, and in consequently not releasing the legally entitled funds of Rs.26,000/- being Rs. 13,000/- each in respect of the petitioners son Nithish Naidu and daughter Miriyala Pujasvani under the Thalliki Vandanam welfare scheme, as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 38 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to delete the said name forthwith from the household mapping and from every linked database, to release Rs. 13,000/- in respect of each of the two children aggregating to Rs.26,000/- together with penal interest into the petitioners Aadhaar seeded bank account within a time to be fixed by this Honble Court, to create a Standard Operating Procedure to quickly redress such grievances while identifying the persons responsible for the glitch and for this prolonged agony, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the respondents to forthwith stop all further excavation, construction and lining of the drainage canal on the petitioner’s property bearing Door No. 37-01-166/a, Town Survey No. 2/1, Guntur Road, Ongole Municipal Corporation limits, Ongole, Prakasam District, to restore the portion of the petitioner’s land occupied by the canal to its original position and not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property except by following due process of law, including acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if any portion of the land is required for a public purpose, pending disposal of this writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in failing to delete the name of a stranger from the household mapping of the petitioner's family at House No. 40-1-21B, Miriyalapalem, Ongole, and consequently seeks a direction for release of the amounts to which the petitioner is entitled towards the Government scheme “Thalliki Vandanam”. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the mother of two children and is entitled to the cash benefit of Rs.26,000/- under the scheme introduced by the 1st respondent, namely, “Talliki Vandanam”, a welfare scheme. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has undertaken the household mapping scheme to extend beneficial schemes to the weaker sections of society. 3. It is also submitted that, for eligibility under the scheme, the department must maintain a household database; household income should not exceed the prescribed rural and urban ceilings; and at least one member should possess a valid rice card. The family should also meet the criteria for holding land within the prescribed limits, electricity consumption, and municipal property, etc., and no member of the household shall pay income tax. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with her husband and two children, resides in one house, under one roof. However, in the household mapping exercise undertaken by the respondents, one person, namely L. Koteswara Rao, son of Peddaiah, was added as a family member of the 4 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 petitioner. The said name has been added twice, thereby showing the total household as six members instead of four. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation before the Grievance Cell seeking redressal of the grievance. It is submitted that the petitioner's complaint was redressed by the competent authority; it was stated that, at present, the option to delete names from the household mapping system is unavailable, and that, once the option becomes available, the requisite corrections would be made in the household mapping insofar as the petitioner's family is concerned. 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner received the benefits under the Thalliki Vandanam Scheme for the last two years and that, on account of the error committed by the respondents while mentioning the names in the household mapping scheme, the petitioner has been denied the said benefit, as the stranger has been added as a family member of the petitioner, disentitling the petitioner from the benefits which are to be extended for the people belonging to the weaker sections. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, at present, the household mapping for extending the monetary benefits and financial assistance for the eligible citizens belonging to the weaker sections is underway and that, at present, the option for deleting the names is unavailable, and that the entire process is system- generated and that the requisite corrections shall be made insofar as the 5 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 petitioner's family is concerned soon after. The option for deleting the names is available. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner can be denied the extension of the welfare scheme under the Thalliki Vandanam Scheme of the Government on the ground that the name of a stranger is linked to the database as a household member of the petitioner's family. The respondents also addressed the petitioner's complaint by stating that, as and when the option for deletion is available, the requisite entry shall be rectified and the petitioner shall be extended the benefits of the welfare scheme. 9. The denial of the welfare scheme to the petitioner on the ground that there was an error insofar as including a stranger's name as a member of the household of the petitioner is concerned cannot be sustained. The competent authorities would have to rectify the error. However, on account of the said error, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the welfare scheme under the Thalliki Vandanam. The mistake committed by the authorities concerned by including a stranger in the household of the petitioner would have to be rectified soon after the availability of the window for deletion to the petitioner. However, pending such process, the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit. 6 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 10. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents to release the financial benefit under the Thalliki Vandanam Scheme to the petitioner's account within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:22.09.2026 NKA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 HN, J W.P.No.26699_2026 66 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26699 of 2026 Date: 22.09.2026 NKA