IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9878 of 2008 Between: Sri Rajasthani Jain Shwetamber Murthy Pujak Sangh, rep. by its Adhoc Committee Member Nemichand Tated S/o. Sri Talsaji Tated R/o. 301 & 302, Arihant Residency, Opp: Parsav Padmavathi Mandir, D.V.Colony, Secunderabad-3. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mahankali Division, Secunderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS. DEVINENI RADHA RANI FOR MR.M.KALYANA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dt.25-4-2008 to provide police picket/protection to the petitioner on 1-5-2008 to conduct the election from 8 a.m. to till concluding of the meeting as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Article 21 of the Constitutional and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to direct the 3rd respondent to provide necessary police picket/protection around 4 persons from 8 a.m. onwards till concluding of the meeting on 1-5-2008 at Jain Bhavan, Pan Bazar, Secunderabad.” I have heard Smt. D.Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s representation, dated 25.04.2008 said to have been filed before respondent Nos.1 and 2 is pending, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the averments raised in the writ petition. Instead, respondent No.1 is directed to consider and dispose of representation, dated 25.04.2008 said to have been filed by the petitioner forthwith and at any rate, not later than 7.00 a.m. of 01.05.2008. If respondent No.1 finds that there are no legal impediments to direct giving of police protection for holding of election by the petitioner, he shall grant such protection. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.13001 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th APRIL, 2008 Note: issue operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. B/o kvni