IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16251 of 2010 Between: Smt.P. Swaroopa Rani ... PETITIONER a n d Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.P. Swaroopa Rani with a prayer to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withdrawing a Gunman to her as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a cinema theatre by name Sri Venkatesa Picture Palace, situated in Sy.No.72/1 of Nagarajupalli village, Kadapa town and district. There are some disputes with regard to the cinema theater which ultimately led to initiation of Civil and Criminal proceedings by the parties. Civil proceedings reached finality with the dismissal of S.L.P.Nos.26051 and 26052 of 2008. 3. The petitioner apprehending danger to her life approached the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Hyderabad and the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor district – respondents 2 and 3 respectively, submitted representation 03-12-2008 narrating various facts and made a request to provide her gunman for the purpose of her security. When no orders were passed on the above said representation, she approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26454 of 2009. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 04-12-2009. The relevant portion of the orders reads as hereunder: “Since the petitioner has already approached the respondents and gave representations, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the gunman is provided to the petitioner, the expenditure of the said gunman shall be borne out by the petitioner only. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court the second respondent considered her representation and issued proceedings providing a gunman to her. Consequently, the Reserve Inspector Administration, Armed Reserve, Chittoor communicated the necessary charges which the petitioner is required to pay through demand draft in favour of Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. It is the case of the petitioner that she paid Rs.19,767/- through a demand draft under a letter dated 22-02-2010. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent withdrew the gunman without putting on notice to her from 28-04- 2010. Thereupon the petitioner submitted representation dated 08- 06-2010 seeking revival of the gunman. There being no action on her representation, she approached this Court invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief stated supra. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for home takes notice on behalf of respondents 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Limited grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of her representation for revival of gunman. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 08- 06-2010 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 12, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16251 of 2010 July 12, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.PN