IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4915 of 2008 Between: 1 P.Mohan Reddy S/o.Sri Bugga Reddy R/o.Maddur village & Mandal Mahabubnagar District 2 Bal Singh Naik S/o.Bheemla R/o.yellareddypalli village Koilakonda mandal Mahabubnagar District 3 K.Thirupathi Reddy S/o.Chandra Reddy R/o.Nidijintha village Maddur Mandal Mahabubnagar District 4 D.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy R/o.Renivatla village Maddur Mandal Mahabubnagar District 5 G.Veera Reddy S/o.Ammireddy R/o.Kajpoor village Maddur Mandal Mahabubnagar District 6 A.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Bugga Reddy R/o.Singinenipalli village, Koilkonda Mandal Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of AP., rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar District 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narayanpet Divison Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District 4 The Station House officer, Maddur Police station Maddur, Mahabubnagar district .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 2 to 4 to treat the complaint dated 02-03-2008 given by the first petitioner against certain workers belonging to Telugu Desam Party as withdrawn. Heard Sri P.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The grievance of the first petitioner is that though he gave a complaint earlier against some of the Telugu Desam Party workers, later he sent a letter to the fourth respondent to treat his complaint dated 02-03-2008 given to the third respondent as withdrawn, respondents 2 to 4 have not taken any action on the same and that on the basis of the earlier complaint given by him, they are harassing the persons whose names were shown in the said complaint. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated that the representation said to have been made by the first petitioner to the fourth respondent has not been received by respondents 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the affidavit filed in this writ petition may be treated by respondents 2 to 4 as their request not to press the complaint dated 02-03-2008 given by the first petitioner to the third respondent. Since this request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is reasonable, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 to 4 to treat the complaint dated 02-03-2008 as withdrawn and drop all further action in pursuance of the said complaint. No order as to costs. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt:11-03-2008 Note:Communicate operative portion by wire (bo) usd