THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.223 of 2010 DATED: 12.01.2010 Between: Kodali Sri Venkateswara Rao .. Petitioner And The Director General of Police, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: Heard Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the 1st respondent. The writ petition could be disposed of at the stage of admission and is accordingly disposed of. The substantive grievance in the writ petition is as to the inaction of the 1st respondent in failing to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.01.2010, for providing police protection and seeking an appropriate direction in that regard in respect of the exhibition of Telugu feature film “Adurs” in Telangana (Nizam) region. By the representation dated 10.01.2010, the 1st respondent was intimated that the Telangana Students Joint Action Committee had warned all related producers of the film and the distributors not to release and exhibit the film in question in the Nizam region; that certain newspapers had also published the said resolution of the Joint Action Committee; that the Committee had sent serious messages threatening to destroy the prints of the film in case of release in the Nizam region; and the 1st respondent was requested to intervene in the issue and provide necessary protection. At the admission and hearing today, the learned Government Pleader for Home had placed before this Court a communication received by him from the 1st respondent, which is to the effect that in view of the apprehension raised by the petitioner, the Commissioners of Police, Hyderabad and Cyberabad, the Superintendents of Police, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy, Mahabubnagar, Adilabad, Warangal, Karimnagar, Khammam, Medak and Nizamabad, are directed to assess the situation and provide necessary protection for release and exhibition of the film and to ensure that no untoward incidents occur. The writ petition also seeks a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the exhibition of film in any manner. Such a direction this Court is not inclined to grant as a quia timet direction against commission of a potential illegal conduct by private persons. If the respondents 2 and 3 commit themselves to any course of action prohibited by law and liable to be regulated by the laws of the Republic, the competent authorities are at liberty to pursue appropriate action against them. No Mandamus is called for in the circumstances. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the instructions already issued by the 1st respondent to the concerned police officers, no specific direction need be issued in this writ petition and in view of the said directions issued by the 1st respondent referred to above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. No order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM 12th January, 2010. IBL/V V