IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1236 of 2009 Between: Thirumala Reddy Thirumal Kumar, S/o. Veera Raghavulu, D.No.53-31-1/6, K.R.M.Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Station House Officer, kancharapalem PS., Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam. 3 Director General of Police, DGP., office, Lakadikapool, 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of the 1st resondent allare wholly illegal, arbitrary unlawful and unconstitutional and accordingly direct the 1st respondent revoke the order passed in order No.111/2008-C 206/H1/2008 dt. 22-1-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1236 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is a home guard in Home Guard Unit, Visakhapatnam. A case in Crime No. 27 of 2008 under Sections 154, 157 Cr.P.C. and under Section 376 (g) of I.P.C. came to be registered against him by the S.H.O. Kanchaapalaem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. The Investigating Officer arrested him and sent him for remand on 18-1-2008. Consequent, on his involvement in a criminal case, his name came to be deleted from the rolls of Home Guard. After his coming out on bail, he submitted representation to the Respondent No.1 to include his name on the rolls of Home Guard. There being no action on the representation, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a criminal case and subsequently he has been released on bail and therefore, there cannot be any impediment for the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner on the rolls as Home Guard. 4. The petitioner seems to have submitted representation to the 1st respondent for inclusion of his name in the rolls as Home Guard. His application is stated to be pending for consideration. 5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st Respondent to consider the representation, dated 19-1-2008 and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 29th January, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1236 OF 2009 29th January, 2009.