IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12028 of 2009 Between: 1 Mr.Vijayaraj S/o Late Sri N.M Jain 3-5-171/1/2 Vittalwadi,Narayananguda Hyderabad 2 Mr Rahul Kumar S/o. Mr Vijayaraj 3-5-171/1/2 Vittalwadi,Narayananguda Hyderabad 3 Rakesh Kumar S/o. Mr Vijayaraj 3-5-171/1/2 Vittalwadi,Narayananguda Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad, office at Lakdikapool,Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer Shamshabad Police Station,R.R District 3 Station House Officer L.B Nagar Police Station Cyberabad,R.R District 4 D.Janagamma W/oJangaiah Ghansimiyaguda(V) Shamshabad(M) R.R District 5 Rajeshwar Goud alias Bullet Raju S/o Vittaliah Goud Shamshabad,R.R District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY FOR MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners questioned the alleged inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3-Police Officers, in considering their representations, dated 16-06-2009, 24-06- 2008 and 26-06-2008, for providing protection to them, their family members and property, as illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioners have earlier filed Writ Petition No.1209 of 2006 with a similar grievance that their representations to provide protection were not being considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide Order, dated 02-03-2006, with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioners’ representations and take appropriate action thereon, in accordance with law. Following the said order, respondent No.2 sent communication, dated 02-04-2006, to the petitioners, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioners initiated civil proceedings by way of O.S.Nos.3199 and 3635 of 2005 against Smt.D.Jangamma and three others in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and that the said disputes being purely civil in nature, it is not possible for the Police to give protection to the petitioners. He further stated that if there is any Law and Order problem and commission of unlawful acts such as criminal trespass etc., by the petitioners’ adversaries, protection will be certainly given to the petitioners, in accordance with law. The petitioners claimed that they made further representations on 16-06-2009, 24-06-2008 and 26-06- 2008 for similar reliefs. On the ground that those representations have not been disposed of, they filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he reiterated the stand taken by him in his proceedings, dated 02-04-2006, communicated to the petitioners. He further stated that the contents of the representations, made by the petitioners, did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and that the disputes between the petitioners and their adversaries being civil in nature, the respondents- Police Officers cannot interfere therein. At the hearing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though the petitioners’ representations pertained to protection in respect of both the property and person of the petitioners, in view of the limitations, which the Police are required to observe, their request for protecting their possession need not be considered by the Police. However, he says that in view of the serious threat being faced by the petitioners, respondent No.1 may be directed to consider granting Police protection to them to protect their life in terms of G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 13-03-1997. As the petitioners’ relief is innocuous, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: ‘1.The petitioners are permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.1 for Police Protection to protect their life and; 2.If such an application is filed, within four weeks from the date of its receipt, respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the same on the basis of the material, if any, produced by the petitioners on the threat perception and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 13-03- 1997, and communicate the order to the petitioners.” As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.15496 and 15495 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th July, 2009 lur