IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24241 of 2008 Between: Kavade Mondimera, S/o. Mahankali, R/o. Bejjur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2 The Station House Officer, Bejjur Police Station, Bejjur Mandal and Post, Adilabad District. 3 The Manager, The Adilabad District Coopertive Central Bank Limited, Branch SK.Nagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 4 P.Santosh, S/op. P.Vykuntam, Branch: Post Master, Papaspet, Bejjur Mandal, Adilabad 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not taking action against the 3rd Respondent by registering Crime is illegal, arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 24241 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled to declare the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in taking action against the 3rd respondent on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint made in January, 2006 as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, the said complaint was lodged before the ﬁrst respondent-Superintendent of Police and having received the same, the ﬁrst respondent directed the second respondent to take the necessary action by an endorsement dated 03-01-2006. Alleging that no action has been taken by the second respondent so far, the present writ petition is ﬁled on 4.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, the complaint was made long back on 3.1.2006. Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner deserve no consideration at this stage and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to make a fresh complaint if he so chooses. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to make a fresh complaint before the respondents 1 and 2, in which event, the same shall be considered following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 14-11-2008 KLP