Allowed

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the father of a student under the Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme sought release of the second installment of financial assistance which was not paid due to non-release of budget. The court, relying on admissions, directed payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to pay the 2nd installment amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner's daughter within a period of three (03) months.

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 817 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, S/o. Krishna Rao, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 20-524-A, Upstairs, Parasupeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶12

The AP State Kapu Welfare and Development Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Office at 12-467, 3'"^ Floor, Pothuri Mercantile, NH-16 Service Road, Tadepalli. Guntur District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 Writ or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'^'^ Respondent in not releasing the 2 nd installment Financial Assistance for the petitioners daughter namely Sreeja Naidu Mandali educational purposes at Abroad under Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme' having been approved her name for the said benefit by the State Level Screening Committee as highly illegal, opposed to the Policy Decision of the Government, arbitrary, exercise of power and also opposed to doctrine

¶15

of legitimate expectation and violative of Article 14, 21-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the 2'"'^ installment financial assistance to the petitioner's daughter namely Sreeja Naidu Mandali under the said scheme forthwith to mitigate the hardship^{oftheselectedone.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the 2'’'^ installment financial assistance to the petitioner's daughter namely Sreeja^{NaiduMandaliunder} "Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme" as approved under the list of approval forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. S. N. NAIDU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI NARAHARISETTY SRIHARI, SC FOR KAPU WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010012922024

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

¶25

PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3329]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 817/2024

¶32

Between:

¶33

Mandali Lakshamana Rao,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.BSNNAIDU

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1 .GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶41

2.NARAHARI SETTY SRIHARI SC FOR KAPU WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT

¶42

3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP)

¶43

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶44

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶45

Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶46

¶47

¶48

“to issue Writ or Direction especiaiiy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of the 3'"^ Respondent in not reieasing the 2”^ instaiiment Financiai Assistance for the petitioner’s daughter nameiy Sreeja Naidu Mandaii educationai purposes at Abroad under “Videshi Vidya Deevana” Scheme having been approved her name for the said benefit by the State Level Screening Committee as highly illegal, opposed to the Policy Decision of the Government, arbitrary exercise of power and also opposed to doctrine of legitimate expectation and violative of Articles 14, 21-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to release the 2nd installment financial assistance to the petitioner’s daughter namely Sreeja Naidu Mandaii under the said scheme forthwith to mitigate the hardship of the selected one and to pass circumstances of the case..’’

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the father of Sreeja Naidu Mandaii,^who is pursued Masters in abroad under the “Videshi Vidya^Deevena Scheme”. He further submits that the respondents herein

¶51

¶52

introduced the subject scheme to render financial assistance^of Rs.10,00,000/to the economically weaker students, who got selected through prescribed process for studying in^overseas in recognized universities, towards tuition fee and living expenses to encourage them. Being eligible, the petitioner’s daughter applied for the financial assistance under the subject scheme^andthe application of the petitioner was approved under the^saidscheme by the State Level Screening Committee. Accordingly, the 3 rd respondent corporation had credited an amount of Rs.5,55,673/into the account of the daughter of the petitioner as 1 st installment. Thereafter, the daughter of the petitioner^hereinhas applied for the 2^'^ installment and provided all the required data. In turn, the petitioner’s daughter made several representations seeking for payment of 2^"^ installment amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, for which she is entitled. But, so far, the respondent^neither considered the same nor paid the 2 nd installment. Having no other option, the petitioner herein preferred the present writ petition.

¶53

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents filed counter affidavit on behalf of the 3'^'^ respondent, wherein, it is admitted that the daughter of the petitioner^received installment of Rs.5,00,000/- and Visa Charges of Rs.55,673/-

¶54

¶55

totaling to an amount of Rs.5,55,673/-. Subsequently,^the 3 rd respondent herein addressed a letter to the Project Manager, APCFSS, Vijayawada to upload the bill of the Mandali Sreeja Naidu/ daughter of the petitioner to release the a""* installment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards tuition fee and other living expenses. Learned Government Pleader further submits that having received the 1®* installment, the daughter of the petitioner is eligible for the 2''^ installment also. But the same is not paid due to non-release of budget. Soon after release of the budget, the 2""^ installment amount as entitled by the daughter of the petitioner will be paid.

¶56

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and in view of the categorical admissions made by the 3'”'^ respondent in his counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to pay the 2''^ installment^amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as entitled by the daughter of the petitioner,^within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶57

this order.

¶58

With the above direction. the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

¶60

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶61

//TRUE COPY// Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶62

To,

¶63

SECTJpf^^FICER

¶64

Andhra State of

¶65

Corporation LtT'office ^*12 467 Development Servioe Road, Ta?e7a®i Gonfu? DiLi^'°°" NH-16

¶66

One CC to Sri B. S. N. Naidu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶68

fo'' Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶69

Sr® 9^ Narahari Setty Srihari i> SC for Kapu Welfare and

¶70

Development (OPUC)

¶71

1. Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.817 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Janmabhoomi Maa Vooru Committee, Vs Sri. Sasi Bhushan Kumar

Shaik Tippu Sultan Vs Shaik Mahaboob Chand

M Sreenivasula Reddy Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar

S G N Fayaz Ahmad Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Mandava Venkata Rao Vs Pothula Rajendra Prasad

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And Transport Contractors Vs The Union of India