IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 14468 of 2004 Between: K.Raganna Setty, S/o.K.Maldakantaiah Setty, Aged about 36 years, Member of Maitri Sangam, Chilakaladona Village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool. 2 The District Educational officer, Kurnool. 3 The Mandal Educational officer, Mantralayam, Kurnool District. 4 Sri B.Satyanarayana Rao, Headmaster, Upper Primary Elementary School, Chilakaladona Village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents No.1 to 3 in conducting enquiry against the 4th respondent in connection with fake / false certificates issued by him, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to conduct enquiry against the 4th respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court at the admission stage made the following : ORDER: The petitioner herein made several representations including the one on 31-10-2003 to the District Collector making certain allegations against the 4th respondent. Be it noted that 4th respondent is the Head Master, Upper Primary Elementary School and he is allegedly issuing fake and forged study certificates to people and is not attending to his duties regularly. The Vigilance Cell of the District Collectorate, Kurnool forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni. The petitioner sent another representation to the District Educational Officer on 26-02-2004 making similar complaints. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not acted upon the complaints for the last three years. Therefore, he invokes the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has not given the details of the allegations, though he refers to various representations allegedly made by him to the authorities. Therefore, no positive orders can be passed directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent. As it is not denied that the representations are still pending, it would be better if the 2nd respondent looks into the complaints of the petitioner and takes appropriate action within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition, with the above observation, is accordingly disposed of. ___________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17-08-2004 vs To 1 The District Collector, Kurnool. 2 The District Educational officer, Kurnool. 3 The Mandal Educational officer, Mantralayam, Kurnool District. 4 Two CCs to the G.P for Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T). 5 Two CD copies. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14468 OF 2004 Dated: 17-08-2004