THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.23918 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the Accreditation Card and Advertisements in the name of the petitioner’s monthly magazine, Viniyoga Dharsini as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to issue the Accreditation Card and Advertisements in the name of the petitioner’s monthly magazine. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of the aforementioned Monthly Magazine of Anantapur Town. The respondents issued notification for issuing accreditation cards. As the petitioner is eligible as per rules, he applied for the same, but the Selection Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner. Inspite of several oral representations to the respondents, no action has been taken. As per rules and G.O.Ms.No.96, General Administration (I&PR.II) Department, dated 08.03.2006, the petitioner, being a press representative, and having fulfilled all the conditions for issuance of accreditation cards, is entitled for issuance of accreditation cards and also advertisement in his magazine. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the application of the petitioner is thoroughly scrutinized as per G.O.Ms.No.96 and as various complaints were received against the petitioner, his application was kept pending, as the process of enquiry is in progress. The petitioner applied for press accreditation for the year 2010 as Rayalaseema Bureau on behalf of periodical ‘Mana MLA’. The press accreditation with Card No.141 was valid upto 31.12.2010 with clear instructions printed overleaf the card that the card has to be returned within 15 days to I & PR Department when he/she ceases to represent the news paper or agency on behalf of which he/she is accredited. The petitioner ceased to work for ‘Mana MLA’ but allegedly worked for Viniyogadarshini periodical from January, 2010 without any intimation to the I & PR Department and not even returned the accreditation card obtained on behalf of ‘Mana MLA’ and thus, he worked with Viniyogadarshini during the period of his holding accreditation on behalf of ‘Mana MLA’ and thus, played double game. As per G.O.Ms.No.96, if a representative fails to surrender the accreditation card within three months from the date of his/her ceasing to represent the organization, he/she shall not be extended the accreditation facility for a period of two years, even if he/she represents any other organization and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the accreditation, as he claims. Many complaints have been received against the petitioner and the respondents have been conducting the enquiries before issuing the accreditations. The petitioner is found ineligible for accreditation and also liable to be suspended for a period of two years as per G.O.Ms.No.96. Puttaparthi Builders Association made a complaint to the Chief Minister against the petitioner and the District Collector, Anantapur was requested to look into the matter. One P.V.Gopal Reddy, Puttaparthi filed C.C.No.161 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapur District against the petitioner. Legal notices were served to respondent No.2 and the District Public Relations Officer and Convenor of the District Media Accreditation Committee with a request to enquire into the malpractices committed by the petitioner and stop the accreditation for the year 2011, which in turn resolved that it will take time to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and hence, kept the case of the petitioner pending. A number of complaints have been received from various persons and associations against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner is not deleted, as the enquiry is pending, and the Committee is yet to resolve to take action against the petitioner for his mistrust and acting contra to the provisions of the rules imposed while granting the accreditation to him. The aggrieved applicant can make an appeal to the Commissioner, I & PR Department for reconsideration of the decision of the District Media Accreditation Committee and hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that simply because the petitioner was shown as an accused in a criminal case, it will not become a ground for not issuing the accreditation cards and advertisements in the name of the petitioner and hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents to issue accreditation cards and advertisements in favour of the petitioner’s magazine. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner and therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 6. Along with the counter-affidavit, several documents were filed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader making several allegations against the petitioner. They are not put to the petitioner so as to explain. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to take appropriate decision as to whether the accreditation cards and also advertisement can be given to the petitioner or not in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 12th December, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.23918 OF 2011 Date:12.12.2011 AMD