(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enforce and implement the insurance policy adopted by them and to allow the valid insurance claim of the petitioner by awarding Rs. One Lac to the petitioner along with 18 per cent interest from due date and also prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the letter dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent no.4.

3. According to the petitioner, she is affected person because of unexpected accidental death of her son, which took place on 23.9.2005. Respondent no.1 is the Secretary of Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, which is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which issued the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 for the benefit and safeguard of interests of family members of the farmers. Respondent no.2 is the Tahsildar, Parbhani, Taluka and District Parbhani, who is empowered to forward the claim to respondent no.4. Respondent no.3 is the Commissioner of Agriculture, Pune, who is having final authority for adjudication of the claims of the claimants in case of dispute and respondent no.4 is the insurance company, to whom the State of Maharashtra has paid the premium in connection with the personal insurance policy made for the benefits of the farmers and their family members, who reside in the State of Maharashtra.

4. Respondent no.1 issued Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005, which is produced at Exh.'A' (page 15) in respect of personal insurance policy for the benefit of farmers and their family members in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter respondent no.1 issued further Government Resolution on 31.3.2005 and thereby continued the afore said scheme of personal accident insurance policy for the benefit of farmers and their family members from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006, a copy of which is annexed at Page 25. Since the petitioner's son met with the accident and expired suddenly on 23.9.2005, she forwarded the claim to respondent no. 4 on 17.11.2005 through respondent no.2 Tahsildar with all necessary documents. However, respondent no. 4 rejected the said claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 27.1.2006, Exh. 'B' (page 35) on the ground that deceased Nitin Dhondiram Mundhe was not a registered farmer.

5. The petitioner made representation to various authorities, such as the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner, Lok Ayukta, etc. and requested to redress her grievance and issued directions to respondent no.4 to grant her claim. Pursuant to the said representation, the Collector, Parbhani sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Parbhani on 28.3.2006 and directed the Tahsildar to forward the documents/record for necessary compliance to respondent no.4 and a copy of the said letter is produced at Exh. 'C colly' (page 37). Moreover, the Tahsildar, Parbhani also issued a letter dated 5.4.2006 to respondent no.4 Exh. 'C colly' (page 38) stating that deceased Nitin Mundhe was a registered farmer and also requested to allow the valid claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner also sent a letter to respondent no.3 through advocate Shri Ghuge and apprised him about rejection of her claim by respondent no.4 vide communication dated 27.1.2006 and requested him to do the needful, in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and grant her amount of Rs. One Lac towards compensation as the heir and legal representative of her deceased son namely Nitin Mundhe, copy of which is produced at Exh. 'C colly' (page 39).

6. A meeting was held under the chairmanship of respondent no.3, which was attended by the representatives of respondent no.4 insurance company and it was decided in the said meeting