One Sri Shenishetty Prabhakar, resident of Ramayampet Village and Mandal, Medak District; was functioning as Mandal President of Ramayampet, between 1995 and 2000. He has taken Janata Personal Accident Policy (for short 'the Policy'), of the United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the respondents') for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. on 15-04-1998. Prabhakar was also a loanee of the Manjeera Grameena Bank. The said Bank has taken out two policies, for sums of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000-, covering his life. On 14-09-2000 he was shot-dead by the Peoples War Group Naxalites (for short 'the PWG'), at Laxmapur Village.

2. The petitioner herein is the wife of late Phabhakar. She submitted claims to the respondents. The latter, however, repudiated the claims, through separate letters dated 11-03-2002 and 08-10-2002, respectively, on the ground that late Prabhakar was involved in a criminal case. On a request made by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad. He passed two separate orders dated 11-03-2002 and 11-12-2002, allowing the claims of the petitioner. He imposed a condition that the amount covered by the policy shall be paid, if it is established that late Prabhakar was found not guilty in the case, that was registered against him in the year 1999. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said orders, and has filed these two writ petitions.

3. The petitioner submits that the very purpose of issuing the policies was, to cover the life of the insured, and once it is established that Prabhakar was killed by Naxalites, the amount became payable. She contends that a case was registered against her husband, when he was alive, alleging that one of the accused in a crime, relating to attacking the Police Station, stated that, on a telephone call made by Prabhakar, one Van was arranged for transporting the extremists. She contends that the very allegation against her husband was without any basis, and at any rate, the case against him abated, on his death.

4. On behalf of the respondents, counter - affidavits are filed. They rely upon Clause 3(e) of the Policy, in support of their decision. According to them, Prabhakar was facing prosecution in Crime No.84 of 99, on the allegation that he facilitated the extremists in providing conveyance for committing an offence against the Police Station, and in that view of the matter, Clause 3(e) is attracted. An objection is raised as to the maintainability of the writ petitions.

5. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the policy covers the risk to life of an insured, and once it is established that the insured was killed by extremists, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents, to pay the amount. He contends that none of he conditions, contained in Clause-3 of the Policy, are attracted, and there is no basis for repudiation of the claims. Learned counsel submits that the observation made by the Insurance Ombudsman, that the amount shall be paid in the event of late Prabhakar being found not guilty in the case registered in the year 1999, is erroneous and untenable.

6. Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, it is a matter of record that the deceased was accused of helping the extremists in blasting a Police Station, and his death is, in a way, connected to the said event. Learned counsel contends that though the death of Prabhakar cannot be strictly linked to his involvement in Crime No. 84 of 99, it has certainly have connection with that, and thereby, Clause 3(e) is attracted. He submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since they involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. He places reliance upon the precedents, in support of his contention.

7. There is no dispute that Prabhakar has taken out a policy In his name, for a sum of RS.5 lakhs, and the Manjeera Grameena Bank has taken out two policies for Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000/-, respectiv