Kum Chodem Durga, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By It Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P. No.3682 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard Ms.Vasudha Nagaraj for petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.5 and Ms.Satyasri for 6th respondent.

The petitioner challenges letter dated 03.11.2016 as illegal, amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction conferred on respondent No.4 and also that the communication dated 03.11.2016 is understood to provide police protection/ aid to 6th respondent by 5th respondent. On 03.02.2017, this Court granted interim direction and now vacate stay petitions are filed by 6th respondent and also respondent No.5.

The counsel for petitioner fairly states that the petitioner was compelled to file the writ petition, for the communication impugned in the writ petition has ambiguity which was resulting in 5th respondent providing police aid or assistance to 6th respondent. She further submits that the 5th respondent has understood the communication impugned in the writ petition in the right perspective and the understanding of 5th respondent is reflected in the counter affidavit filed by him. In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the fear or apprehension with which the petitioner has come to Court does not subsist. She does not press the writ prayer. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is also taken on file. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________ S.V.BHATT, J Date:22.03.2018 Stp