IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OFJULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5729 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Raja Shekar, S/o. Late Shekar, M.P.T.C. MEMBER, R/o. Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad, H.No. 2-1-103, Islampura, Banswada, Nizamabad District. 2 P. Saritha, D/o. Late Laxman @ Balaraj, r/o. 2-2-10, Islampura, Banswada, Nizamabad District. 3 Patti Srikanth, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Banswada, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, Office at Police Headquarters, Director General of Police Office, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3The Superitendent of Police, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 4The Station House Officer, Banswada Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5Kasula Balraj, S/o. Late Babu Rao, Mandal Parishad President, Banswada Mandal, R/o. Banswada, Nizamabad District. 6Kasula Ashok, S/o. late Babu Rao, R/o. Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. 7P. Satyanarayana @ Praveen, S/o. P. Laxman @ Balraj, R/o. Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. 8P. Srinivas, S/o. Vittal, R/o. Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. 9P. Raghu, S/o. Vittal, R/o. Banswada Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 4 for not providing necessary police protection to the Petitioners life and liberty from the hands of the Respondents No. 5 to 9 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SUBHANI.S.M. Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5729 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 belong to different communities, but yet have married As the petitioners apprehend threat to their life from the respondent Nos. 5 to 9, who are stated to be the relatives of the 2nd petitioner and who are opposed to the marriage of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and as the 3rd petitioner is stated to be a friend of the 1st petitioner who has helped in the marriage of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioners seek protection of the State from any harm from respondent Nos. 5 to 9. In the writ petition it is pleaded that they orally represented to the officials for protection. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Home states that no such representation seeking protection has been received from the petitioners. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting the petitioners liberty to submit a written representation to the 3rd respondent seeking police protection. On receipt of such a representation from one or more or all the petitioners the 3rd respondent may cause appropriate enquiries to be made as to the threat perception and take an appropriate decision consistent with the obligations of the State to protect citizen’s life and liberty. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 03-07-2008 Pvks/*