The High Court dismissed this writ petition after noting that the 2nd respondent, who was allegedly threatening the petitioner, died in March 2015. The court held that no apprehension of harm existed, closing the petition without costs.
The writ petition is closed; No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13105 of 2013
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:
“… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representations dated 28.11.2012 and 22.03.2013 requesting to provide protection to the petitioner and the educational institutions being managed by the society as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent with an ulterior motive to misappropriate the funds of the society was making efforts to gain control over the society. The 2nd respondent also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences for coming in her way. In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.23303 of 2010, this Court directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order by orders dated 05.10.2010. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner submitted a representation on 18.11.2012 to provide two police constables for his protection.
During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions dated 26.06.2015 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupathi West Police Station, Tirupathi, wherein it is stated
2
that the 2nd respondent died in the month of March, 2015 and therefore, the question of protection does not arise.
Having heard both the counsel and from a perusal of the material on record, the apprehension of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent was bent upon to cause loss to the person and his property. When the 2nd respondent died in the month of March, 2015, there is no hesitation to hold that there is any justification for apprehension of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.
_____________________
P. KESHAVA RAO, J
Date: 27.11.2018.
ES
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.23303 of 2010Explained¶7
Petitioner
Government Pleader representing Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
2nd Respondent
P. Keshava Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
