JUDGMENT : (P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.) The second petitioner is stated to be a victim of the use of the pesticide 'Endosulfan'. The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. Petitioners have four children, of which three children namely, Jishnu Kumar, Jyothika and Adithya Krishnan are also stated to be victims of the use of Endosulfan. It is stated by the petitioners that although the second petitioner and her children namely, Jyothika and Jishnu Kumar were included in the list of beneficiaries drawn for treatment of Endosulfan victims and were extended treatment facilities on that basis, the second petitioner and her daughter Jyothika are denied treatment facilities since 2019. It is also stated by the petitioners that their third child Adithya Krishnan is also now suffering from ailments relating to the use of Endosulfan, and he is not being extended treatment facilities as extended to other similarly placed victims of Endosulfan. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the first respondent to include the second petitioner and two of her children namely, Jyothika and Adithya Krishnan also in the list of beneficiaries drawn for extending treatment facilities to Endosulfan victims, so as to enable them to claim treatment facilities free of cost. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent contending among others, that the second petitioner and her two children mentioned in the writ petition have no health conditions due to use of Endosulfan and they are therefore not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. 3. When this matter was taken up earlier on 03.07.2024, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the second petitioner and Jyothika were not included in the list of beneficiaries drawn for extending treatment facilities as it was found in the medical camp held in the year 2017 that their ailments were not related to the use of Endosulfan. They were however, extended treatment facilities later as their ailments were found to be prima facie relating to the use of Endosulfan. It was also submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the said facility was withdrawn later based on the decision taken by the District Level Endosulfan Cell in their meeting held on 03.07.2020 to confine free treatment facilities only to the beneficiaries included in the list earlier drawn by the first respondent. It was also submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the said facility was withdrawn later based on the decision taken by the District Level Endosulfan Cell in their meeting held on 03.07.2020 to confine free treatment facilities only to the beneficiaries included in the list earlier drawn by the first respondent. As far as the son of the petitioners Jishnu Kumar is concerned, it was submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that he was found to be a victim of the use of Endosulfan and he is being extended treatment facilities in terms of Government Order G.O.(M.S) 111/13 dated 26.03.2023. Having regard to the case set out by the petitioners that the second petitioner and her three children are similarly placed and denial of treatment facilities to three among them is arbitrary and discriminatory, this Court, as per interim order dated 03.07.2024, directed the first respondent to constitute a Special Medical Team to subject the second petitioner and her children Jyothika and Adithya Krishnan to medical examination to ascertain whether the ailments suffered by them are due to the use of Endosulfan. 4. The materials on record would show that in the light of the interim order dated 03.07.2024, a Medical Board was constituted consisting of five expert doctors to examine the second petitioner and her children and that Medical Board issued medical certificates after examining the second petitioner and her children, Adithya Krishnan and Jyothika. The said medical certificates are part of the records in this case as Ext.R1(c) series. The relevant portion of the medical certificate issued in respect of the second petitioner reads thus: “We the Chairman and members of District Medical Board carefully examined Mrs.Sreelatha. N. K, 45 years is a case of treated left sphenoid wing meningioma for which surgery was done in 2017. She had recurrence of the Tumor in 2018 for which she took adjuvant radio therapy from 21.01.2019 to 01.03.2019. She has complaints of Parethesia, pins and needle sensation of both legs and hands. She has abdominal pain, menorrhagia, recurrent abortions, decreased hearing on left side. She has complaints of decreased memory for past 10 - 15 years and she has difficulty in performing day to day activities. She has simple myopic astigmatism of right eye corrected to normal 6/6 vision with spectacles. She has abdominal pain, menorrhagia, recurrent abortions, decreased hearing on left side. She has complaints of decreased memory for past 10 - 15 years and she has difficulty in performing day to day activities. She has simple myopic astigmatism of right eye corrected to normal 6/6 vision with spectacles. Left eye has mature cataract and paralysis of 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th & 6 th cranial nerves leading to complete ptosis, external ophthalmoplegia and loss of vision, which developed when she had left sphenoidal wing meningioma. Her son has Marfan’s Syndrome with subluxation of lens of both eyes and cardiovascular abnormalities. He underwent lens extraction of both eyes. This is a congenital disorder. Mother has acquired intracranial malignancy which is unrelated to congenital abnormality of the son.” The relevant portion of the medical certificate issued in respect of Adithya Krishnan reads thus: “We the chairman and members of District Medical Board on carefully examined ADITHYA KRISHNA, D/o Sreelatha, Mooladukkam, Muliyar P.o, Kasaragod District on 12.07.2024, found that he is having Varicose Veins both lower limb with chronic venous ulcer dorsum right foot, and hydrocele bilateral. His sister and mother is having history of varicose veins. His non heel ulcer on right foot and bilateral limb oedema in due to chronic venous in sufficiency. As per the Guidelines for endosulfan screening of Government of kerala G.O (Rt) No 3046/2023 H & FWD dated TVM 18/11/2023 there nothing is suggest that the condition is due to endosulfan.“ The relevant portion of the medical certificate issued in respect of Jyothika reads thus: “We the chairman and members of District Medical Board on carefully examined JYOTHIKA. D/o Sreelatha, Mooladukkam, Muliyar P.o, Kasaragod District on 12.07.2024 . found that she is having chronic lower limb venous insufficiency, incompetent saphenofemoral junction. She is also having chronic venous ulcer dorsum of both feet. Chronic ulcer is due to chronic venous insufficiency. Her mother and brother is having varicose vein. D/o Sreelatha, Mooladukkam, Muliyar P.o, Kasaragod District on 12.07.2024 . found that she is having chronic lower limb venous insufficiency, incompetent saphenofemoral junction. She is also having chronic venous ulcer dorsum of both feet. Chronic ulcer is due to chronic venous insufficiency. Her mother and brother is having varicose vein. As per the guideline for endosulfan screening of Govt of Kerala G.O (Rt) no 3046/2023/H & FWD dated TVM 18/11/2023 there is nothing to suggest that the condition is due to endosulfan.” Inasmuch as the medical certificate issued in respect of the second petitioner was lacking clarity, a Special Medical Team comprising of doctors from the District Hospital, Kanhangad was constituted again by the Superintendent, District Hospital and the second petitioner was examined by the said Medical Team on 12.08.2024. The conclusion of the said Medical Team is also that the second petitioner is suffering from Meningioma and the same is not a congenital illness, and is unlikely to be related to Endosulfan. The said medical certificate is part of the records in this case as Ext.R1(e). The relevant portion of the said medical certificate reads thus: “Conclusion: Mother, Mrs.Sreelatha, has an acquired condition (brain tumor-meningioma), whereas son, Mr.Jishnu Kumar, has a congenital condition (Marfans syndrome with lens subluxation). Both diseases are not one and the same. The disease, Meningioma, is not a congenital illness, and is “unlikely to be related to Endosulfan””. It is in the light of the above medical certificates that the respondents take the stand in the writ petition that the second petitioner and her two children referred to in the writ petition have no health condition due to Endosulfan use. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Special Government Pleader. 6. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent that the Government, as per G.O. (Rt.) No.1981/23/H&FWD dated 05.08.2023, has constituted a State Level Expert Panel of super-speciality doctors and various experts from inside and outside the State to formulate guidelines for identifying Endosulfan victims and it is that State Level Expert Panel fixed the guidelines for identifying the Endosulfan victims. Ext.R1(g) is the order issued by the Government constituting the State Level Expert Panel and Ext.R1(f) is the guidelines fixed by the Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Level Expert Panel. Ext.R1(g) is the order issued by the Government constituting the State Level Expert Panel and Ext.R1(f) is the guidelines fixed by the Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Level Expert Panel. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent that it is in accordance with Ext.R1(f) guidelines that the medical certificates Ext.R1(c) series and Ext.R1(e) are issued. The petitioners do not challenge the competency of the persons included in Ext.R1(g) order to give recommendations to the Government to fix the guidelines for identifying Endosulfan victims nor do they contend that the medical certificates referred to above are not issued in terms of Ext.R1(f) guidelines. No material whatsoever is also produced to show that the factual conclusions arrived at by the expert doctors constituting the Medical Boards are incorrect. In the circumstances, we are unable to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.