IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18779 of 2008 Between: B.Raghavender Reddy S/o.Late B.Ram Reddy R/o.H.No.B-25, F3, Vignanpur colony Vidyanagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Law, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Director of Prosecutions, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 4 Kancherla Venkateshwar Rao @ Venkat @ Venkat Rao S/o. Keshava Rao R/o.8-2-273/82/HE/17, Unit No.II, Plot No.17 Valley View Enclave, HUDA Heights , Jubilee Hills Hyderabad .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the application dated 25.8.2008 submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to appoint a special public prosecutor in this case to conduct the prosecution of SC.No.217/2008 on the ﬁle of the Hon`ble II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally,Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18779 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein, who is the defacto complainant, made an application on 25-08-2008 requesting appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in S.C.No.217 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. Alleging that the first respondent failed to consider the request of the petitioner and in the meanwhile, the trial in S.C.No.217 of 2008 was scheduled to be commenced, the present writ petition is ﬁled. Though as per the original schedule, the trial was scheduled to commence on 01-09-2008 and then adjourned to 16-09- 2008, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that the matter has been adjourned to 15-10-2008. On behalf of the ﬁrst respondent, a counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled, stating that the application of the petitioner for appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor is under examination and action would be taken as per the Rules in force. Since admittedly, the petitioner’s application is pending, it is for the ﬁrst respondent to take a decision in accordance with law and it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on merits at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor as per his application dated 25-08-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date:16-09-2008 KLP