IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13508 of 2009 Between: 1 Ms.Dona Nazarath D/o. Late Lt.Col.L.M.Nazarath, Flat No.401, Fribzi Data Sree Towers, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad - 500 072. 2 S.M.Ali Khan S/o. Late S.Moinuddin Ali Khan R/o.162/A, Gunrock, Phase-II, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Director, Meteorological Department, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. 2 The Chief Editor, Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper Ushodaya Publications, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Editor, Deccan Chronicle English Daily News Paper, S.D.Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and all concerned in not providing accurate information about the weather report and publishing accurate news in the news papers leading to irreparable loss and injury and hardship to the farmers and citizens of rural background effecting their time, talent and treasure and direct the respondents and all concerned to take steps and provide accurate information about the whether reports and publication of the news in the news papers Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI A. Rajashekar Reddy (Asst Solicitor Gen) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioners have prayed that some better system should be evolved for prediction of weather including monsoon etc., so as to help the farmers. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that before filing this petition, no representation was ever made to respondent No.1. 3. In the facts of the case, respondent No.1 shall treat this petition as a representation and shall do the needful. 4. Registry shall forward a copy of the order along with a copy of the petition to respondent No. 1 so that needful can be done by his office. 5. The petition stands disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th July, 2009 ks