IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.653 of 2004 Between: B.G.Prakasam, s/o B.Devadanam, R/o Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. 3 The Inspect of Police, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the Rifle Automatic Remington and Double barrel gun of the petitioner taken away by the respondents without any cause and pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000 (Ten Lakhs) to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAJA MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.653 of 2004 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he was the member of the Legislative Assembly during the year 1978-1983, representing the Indian National Congress Party. He is having Ac.5.00 of land in his native place at Donakonda village and Mandal of Prakasam District. He has obtained licence for one rifle and double barrel gun, the cost of which is Rs.38,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively and the present cost of the automatic rifle is Rs.76,000/- and double barrel gun is Rs.90,000/- . It is stated that during elections to the Legislative Assembly held in 1994, the 3rd respondent directed him to deposit the aforesaid two guns and accordingly, the same were deposited in 1994, and thereafter, the said guns were returned and again taken away by the police. It is stated that on 20.11.1994 some unknown persons committed dacoit in his house and the articles, gold, cash etc. worth Rs.5 lakh have been looted away. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the weapons were taken for protection of his personal life and property, but he was prevented from protecting his property as the said weapons were taken away by the police. Therefore, he seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the said guns and also to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. A counter has been filed stating that admittedly the petitioner is a holder of two guns and having Ac.5.00 of land in his village and he was asked to deposit the said weapons during elections to the Legislative Assembly held in 1994, and accordingly, the petitioner on his own deposited the said weapons in the police station on 05.08.1994. From that day onwards, the said weapons were never returned by the police as it is not safe to return the same as there is no safety to the petitioner and the weapons due to extremist activities prevalent in the area. With regard to the complaint filed by the petitioner in Cr.No.50/1994, it is stated that no evidence is forthcoming with regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and therefore a final report has been filed referring the complaint as ‘false’ and the petitioner did not file any protest application questioning the final report, and therefore, it cannot be said that the extremists looted away his properties. It is stated that the weapons were never returned and the petitioner never questioned the policy of the Government in not returning the said weapons due to extremist activities, and in fact the District Collector, Prakasam District issued proceedings in C3/498/2002 dated 29.04.2003 informing the petitioner that the weapons cannot be handed over to him in view of the extremists threat in Donukonda village and mandal as well as there is no safety to the weapons. The said proceedings of the District Collector dated 29.04.2003 was not at all questioned, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the concerned in view of the present situation for return of his weapons, and if any such representation is filed, it may be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 25.06.2008 Dsr ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector & Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. 3 The Inspect of Police, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 2. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies