IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11845 of 2010 Between: Gone Anand Netha & others … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for respondents 1-5: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11845 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to provide protection to the lives of the petitioners and their family members. I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 5. All the petitioners belong to one family. According to them, petitioner No.7 is an operator in a share consultancy, that at his instance, respondent Nos.6 to 14 invested their monies in shares, that on account of recession in the share market, the value of the shares has fallen drastically, that respondent Nos.6 to 14 have been threatening the petitioners to return the money invested by them and that there is a serious threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners. The petitioners further stated that they have approached respondent No.2 with a representation to provide security to them. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that as many as 4 criminal cases have been registered against some of the petitioners and that obviously in order to escape from the due legal process, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to give any explanation whatsoever for non-disclosure of the above material fact. In my opinion, this Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not extend such jurisdiction in favour of the persons, who do not approach it with clean hands. The petitioners, being accused in several criminal cases, ought to have disclosed the said fact in the writ petition. Non- disclosure of the said fact would amount to suppression and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14956 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.06.2010. ES