Disposed

Anumula Revanth Reddy v. The Union of India

Telangana HC3 Mar 2020WP/4673/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking Mandamus for expediting security decision for an MP. Court dispensed with hearing details, directed petitioner to file a fresh application, and ordered the 1st respondent to consider it within six weeks after consulting the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application; 1st respondent to consider it after consultation with State Government and pass order within six weeks.

Anumula Revanth Reddy Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.No.4673 of 2020

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the 1^st respondent to expedite the decision making process by virtue of the letter dt 28/08/2019 addressed by the Hon’ble Home Minister, Union of India pursuant to the petitioner’s representation to provide security and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to take appropriate decision pursuant to the Letter dt 28/08/2019 addressed by the Hon’ble Home Minister, Union of India in reply to petitioner’s representation for indulging security in view of lawful threat to his life as expeditiously as possible within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Member of

¶8

Parliament. Since he apprehends threat, he submitted an application during August 2019, to the 1^st respondent seeking protection. The 1^st respondent-Union of India has acknowledged the same vide letter dated 28.08.2019 and informed that necessary action would be taken thereon. But, so far, no steps have been taken.

¶9

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 1^st respondent be directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶11

Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that since there is no date on the application submitted by the petitioner, let the petitioner make an application afresh, in accordance with law, and the 1^st respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶12

Learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 2 and 3 contended that there is no life threat to the petitioner. Since there is an elaborate procedure, the 1^st respondent must consult with the State Government for providing security to the petitioner.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an application to the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such an application being received, the 1^st respondent shall consider the same after consulting with the State Government, if necessary, and pass appropriate orders,

¶14

¶15

within a period of six weeks thereafter, in accordance with

¶16

law.

¶17

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶18

closed.

¶19

_____________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶20

Date: 03.03.2020 rkk

Anumula Revanth Reddy v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anumula Revanth Reddy v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kambhampati Prabhanjan Rao Vs Bodda suresh Kumar

S. Kishore Kumar, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies/

Sri S.Vijaya Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Uppu Sainath S/o Rajanna, aged about 35 years, Vs The Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad

T.Ravi Babu Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 3 others

G.Prasad Yadav Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company of Limited