IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.21495 OF 2011 DATED:29.7.2011 Between: A.V. Venugopal Rao … Petitioner And Union of India Rep. by Cabinet Secretary Cabinet Secretariat Government of India New Delhi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.21495 OF 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. A Writ of Mandamus is sought inter alia to command the functionaries of the State not to allow any agitations and bandhs in support of creation of Telangana State. It is relevant to mention here that we have had an occasion to deal with a petition bearing W.P. No.11908 of 2011 seeking a direction for introduction of a Bill in the Parliament for formation of a separate Telangana State which was dismissed vide order dated 26-4-2011 on the ground that legislation for purposes of formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States is the province and power of the Parliament, therefore the Parliament could decide to create or not to create a State. Going by mandate of Article 3 of the Constitution we find Parliament’s power does not admit any limitation period-wise which would divest it of its power of legislation. Thus power to form or alter the formation of a State or alteration of areas, names etc., is always available to the Parliament and can be exercised any time. In that view of the matter, first question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Parliament has no power to deal with the alteration of boundaries of State of Andhra Pradesh is answered in the negative. 2. Second question raised is as to whether State is bound to pay compensation to the legal heirs of those who have committed suicide. Neither any law nor any policy is brought to our notice which would substantiate entitlement of such persons to the compensation, therefore no answer is called for. 3. Third question is whether the Government is bound to prevent daily routine agitations. It goes without saying that right to do democratic protests cannot be prevented if peaceful and of course subject to lawful limitations/restrictions. 4. Contention is also urged that once resignations of the M.L.As are rejected they cannot resign once again but no provision is brought to our notice which would substantiate the contention. More so, contention is beyond the scope of the writ petition, therefore, we refrain from expression of opinion on that count. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 29-7-2011 B. Narsinga Rao