IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30015 of 2014 BETWEEN A.Rama Krishna Reddy AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that security of 2+1 gunmen is not being provided to him and hence, a Mandamus to that effect is sought for. It is stated that petitioner is under a threat from the sand mafia and the threat continues even now.
3. When the matter came up on the earlier occasion, learned senior counsel for the petitioner filed an additional affidavit to substantiate that the threat exists even now.
4. Learned Advocate General, however, states that the petitioner’s security has not been withdrawn in entirety, but 1+1 security is continued and the security provided to the petitioner earlier has been scaled down to 1+1.
5. However, since the prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to restore the security of 2+2 gunmen, the matter was heard again. A decision of the learned single judge of this court in W.P.No.23563 of 2014 and batch dated 26.09.2014 is relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General.
6. Keeping in view the orders of this court in similar such matter, it would be just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition by reiterating the same direction, which is extracted hereunder:
“ For this purpose, ten (10) days time from today is accorded to each of the petitioner-protectee to draw-up an appropriate representation for consideration of the Review Committee headed by the Additional Director General of Police and the same will be examined, if necessary, by securing fresh inputs from the respective Superintendents of Police and take a final decision, as expeditiously as possible. However, till such time a final decision is taken and communicated, the security arrangements made hitherto will be continued.
In this view of the matter, I have not adverted to the various contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the writ petitions and the contentions canvassed in reply by the learned Advocate General. Hence, it goes without saying that, all such contentions are kept open.”
7. Following the above directions in the present case also, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation for consideration of the review committee within ten days from today and on receiving of such representation, the review committee shall examine the same expeditiously and take final decision in the matter and communicate the final decision to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the review committee, the existing security provided to the petitioner shall continue.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 17, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy by 20.10.2014.
{B/o} LMV