IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO :1365 of 2009 Between: 1. V. Venkata Srinivasa Raju alias Vasu Raju and others. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Director General & Inspector General of Police and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO :1365 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP No.19086 of 2009 in WP No.14559 of 2009, dated 7.10.2009. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not disposing of the representation dated 27.5.2009 and the action of the 4th respondent in harassing the writ petitioners to withdraw the civil proceedings initiated by them, as arbitrary, illegal and improper and consequently, to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation and also to direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with the civil proceedings. While so, the petitioners filed the above WPMP seeking directions to respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.5.2009 submitted by them. It is the case of the writ petitioners that though there were complaints against the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent is not properly conducting investigation and trying to help the 5th respondent, whereas it is stated by the 4th respondent in his counter-affidavit that the 5th respondent is conducting shares business in the name and style of M/s North East Broking Services Limited at Hyderabad and opened branches at Amalapuram and Razole of East Godavari District, collected about Rs.70 lakhs from number of customers and embezzled the same and on the reports of the aggrieved persons, cases were registered against the 5th respondent vide Crime Nos.14, 33, 34 and 196 of 2008 on the file of Amalapuram Town P.S., and the investigation is in progress and that the 1st petitioner, who was found to be acting as Manager of one of the branches of the 5th respondent, was shown as accused in the above crimes and that on the report of the Managing Director of the 5th respondent, a case in Crime No.72 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 406, 468 and 477(A) read with 34 IPC was registered on the file of Amalapuram Town P.S. and all the petitioners were shown as accused in the said crime. On 7.10.2009, the learned single Judge having observed that there is no material to show that the 4th respondent is supporting the 5th respondent and in the absence of any material, no direction can be issued and that in one of the crimes, the petitioners are the accused and the question as to whether there is any role played by the petitioners in the fraud alleged against the 5th respondent is a matter of investigation and that the relief sought for in the WPMP is similar to the main prayer in the writ petition and unless the petitioners succeed in the writ petition, no relief can be granted, dismissed the above WPMP. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants-writ petitioners. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the material on record makes it clear that the relief that is sought for in the above WPMP is similar to the relief sought for in the main writ petition. In view of the pendency of the main writ petition for the self same relief and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it is not a fit case to express any opinion on the very merits of the case inasmuch as the opinion, if any expressed in the course of these interlocutory proceedings, may touch the merits of the main writ petition. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge is justified in passing the order under appeal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. However, Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing on 14th December, 2009. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy Dated: 3rd December, 2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO :1365 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 3rd December, 2009 `````````