Allowed

Boddu Lalithamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Oct 2022WP/33983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the rejection of a widow's application for a Family Member Certificate. The Court held that rejecting the application based on an oral telephone objection violated the mandatory requirement of a written objection under G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015. The Court directed the Authorities to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 20.5.2022 set aside; respondent directed to consider petitioner's application for Family Member Certificate afresh within four weeks.

Boddu Lalithamma Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.33983 OF 2022

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Boddu Lalithamma, W/o.Late Boddu Narasimulu

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and others

¶9

… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : M/s.N.Pramod Counsel for respondents : The G.P. for Revenue

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the endorsement of respondent No.3 dated 20.5.2022 in rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of Family Member Certificate as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to issue Family Member Certificate to the petitioner in terms of

¶13

¶14

G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (Services–II) Department, dated 25.4.2015.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia , contends that in view of the death of the petitioner’s husband, an application was made to respondent No.3 for grant of Family Member Certificate, by enclosing relevant documents, pursuant to which certain enquiries were made by the Village Revenue Officer, Sidhout and on the basis of the report submitted by him, the application of the petitioner was rejected. Drawing the attention of this Court to the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, the learned counsel would submit that Revenue Authorities instead of following the procedure as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015, rejected the petitioner’s application on the premise that the first daughter of the petitioner objected for issuance of Family Member Certificate to the petitioner. He submits that as per the procedure contemplated under the said G.O., on an application made through Meeseva, the Tahsildar shall issue Family Member Certificate, provided there is no written objection from any other member of the family. He submits

¶16

¶17

that in the present case, as is evident from the impugned order, the concerned V.R.O., appears to have contacted the first daughter of the petitioner over phone and on the basis of the same, the application for issuance of Family Member Certificate was rejected, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the said G.O. He submits that on that ground alone the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the other reasons as assigned by the concerned Revenue Officials that the petitioner is residing with another person is not only uncharitable and untenable, but also immaterial for considering the application of the petitioner. In any event, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order under challenge is liable to be quashed.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, made sincere attempts to sustain the order of respondent No.3, inter alia contending that as the first daughter of the petitioner objected for issuance of Family Member Certificate, the respondent No.3 is justified in rejecting the application and seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶19

¶20

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record, including the G.O., referred to above.

¶21

Government of A.P., vide G.O.Ms. No.145, dated 25.4.2015, issued instructions and laid down the procedure for issuance of Family Member Certificate. In terms of the said G.O., the Tahsildar/3^rd respondent is ordained to adhere to the procedure and obligated to issue a Family Member Certificate, if there is no written objection from any other member of the family. As seen from the impugned proceeding, as also in the references cited therein, no written objection appears to have been made by the first daughter of the petitioner for issuance of Family Member Certificate sought for by the petitioner. Except oral objections, which are stated to have been made over phone when the concerned V.R.O., contacted her, nothing is there on record to show that the petitioner’s application was objected to in writing by any family member, in the absence of which rejection of petitioner’s application is not sustainable. The order under challenge as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be set aside, as the same is

¶22

¶23

contrary to the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.4.2015.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement/proceeding dated 20.5.2022 is set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of Family Member Certificate afresh, in accordance with the G.O., referred to above and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

October 19, 2022. vasu

¶26

_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Boddu Lalithamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Lalithamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalluri Siddaiah Vs D.v.Ramana

Mareedu Vishnu Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dheeraj Dama Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Prapalsha Agros Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vaddi Annapurna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Nagaraja Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh