IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8807 of 2009 Between: Patlavat Gopal Naik, S/o.Jagya Naik, R/o. Sevalal Nagar Tanda, Moosapet, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga REddy District. 3 The Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 The Home Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building , Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 herein in not granting weapon license in pursuance of representation dated 19- 02-2009 made by the petitioner herein for grant of weapon license to protect the life and personal liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent-Station House Officer against the some persons, who are arrayed as accused in Cr. No.825 of 2008 on the file of P.S. Kukatpally, alleging that on 23.12.2008, they along with 60 people came to his house and attempted to kill his two brothers and threatened the members of his family with dire consequences. Based on the complaint, a case in Cr. No.1388 of 2008 was registered, and as the police neither apprehended the culprits nor provided police protection to the victims of crime, he made a representation dated 19.02.2009 to the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police, requesting for grant of weapon license and protection to his person and members of his family, but it is his grievance that the 2nd respondent has neither granted weapon licence nor passed any orders on his representation. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Since the representation dated 19.02.2009, said to have been made by the petitioner, is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police is directed to consider the representation dated 19.02.2009, said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 28th April, 2009 bcj