Mohammed Shaheen Begum v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVI SHANKAR JANDHY.6 LA (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9: SRI R. LAXMIKA.I ITH REODY, AGP FOR HO JIE Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI N. BHUJANGA Rl O, DEPUTYY SOLICITOR GE:! IERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER i THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No.294'10 ot 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief "-. to issue a writ, order or direction, more pafticulady one in lhe nalure of Writ of Mandamus, declaing that Right to Fty the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Atticle 191a 192 Afticle 133(a) and Anicb 51 41 of the Constitution of lndia and any obstruction caused to the petitioner in hoisting the flag or attending to the flag ho$ling by the respondents 4 to 9 would violate Flag Code of lndia and Aiicle 191a 192 Ariicle 133 a and Afticle 51 A1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially declare preventing the petitioner from attending the flag hoisting parade at the Suryapet Municipat Office at 8-00 a m and obstruction caused to the petitioner from hosting the flag on 15/8/2017 by the respondents 4 to 9 as itlegal ahitrary unconstitutional and consequentialty direct the respondent 3 to register a crime against respondents 4 to I for infnnging the fundamental right oi ftag hoisting/parlicipatng cn 15/U2017 as per the complaint given by the petitioner clated 19/U2017 and pass .

2. None for the petitioner. \ \

3. Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents \ \

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the grievance of the petitioner relates to the alleged obstruction caused to him in attending the flag hoisting parade and in preventing him from hoisting the national flag on that occasion at the Suryapet Municipality Office at 8:00 A.M. on 15 08.2017. lt is further submitted ) that, with the efflux of time and as the petitioner has nc t been pursuing the matter, no further orders are required in this writ pr-' ition

5. I have perused the material available on record

6. Having considered the submissions and in vie a of the fact that the petitioner's grievance pertains to an incident that r: :curred in 2017 , coupled with the absence of representation on behall )f the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the cause raised in thr: writ petition has become infructuous. However, liberty is reserved to he petitioner to file an appropriate application for revival of this petitior in the event he is able to demonstrate that the cause of action : till survives for adjudication.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as rr 1 uctuous. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pendtng if any, shall sl: nd closed //TRUE COPY/I Sd/. A. :,REENIVASA REDDY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR ('-* SECTION OFFICER To Hyderabad [OUTI

1. One CC to SRI RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA, Advoca e [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home ,High Court for the State of 3. Ohe CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAo, Deputy Solicitor ( eneral of lndia 4. Two CD Copies :langana at loPUCl -l BM MP LY. I n HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER WP.No.29410 ot 2017 E ris { o C) 2 I AN 202[ r' 6) * \a- :/' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS I * 9Y v'16