IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH 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 : 24194 of 2008 Between: Kolan Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Subhan Reddy, R/o. 1-5/2, Nizampet (V), Qutbullapur Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Principle Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Gachibowli, R.R., Hyderabad 3 The Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Inspector of Police, Dundigal Police Station, Ranga Reddy 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to set up a new police station for the Nizampet villagers or an alternatively at least to shift the jurisdiction to the Kukatpally Police Station in view of the Nizampet villagers without delay as it is being illegal, arbitrary and violtive of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramana Allu Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has made a grievance with regard to the change of jurisdiction of Kukatpally Police Station. It has been submitted by the petitioner in the petition that because of the changed jurisdiction, the nearest police outpost/police station from his village viz., Nizampet is about 17 kilometres. 2. It is not for this Court to decide as to where a particular police station or outpost should be established. In our opinion, it would be just and proper if the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 is considered by him. 3. In the circumstances, we direct respondent No.2 to look into the representation dated 15-07-2008, which was received by his office on or about 15-07-2009 and do the needful. After considering the representation, respondent No. 2 shall take decision as soon as possible and preferably within two months from today, and communicate the final decision taken by him to the petitioner. 4. The petition stands disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th July, 2009 ks