HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26301 of 2009 Date: July 5, 2010 Between: Potala Rammohan, S/o. Bhaskara Rao, Aged 58 years, C/o.Rajappanna, Madhuranagar, Old RTO office, Srikakulam town … Petitioner And The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town Police, Srikakulam town and District, and two others … Respondents Order: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though third respondent-club is resorting to unlawful gaming activities, no action is being taken by respondents 1 and 2 herein. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that third respondent-club, earlier, filed W.P.No.9305 of 2008, against the Police, stating that they are interfering with its lawful activities, which was disposed of with a direction not to interfere with the activities of third respondent-club, which are permitted under law. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that third respondent-club, having obtained the aforesaid orders, is indulging in games involving betting and also creating nuisance by allowing cars of visitors to be parked without any order. However, it is stated that no written complaint was filed against third respondent-club and it was orally brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 about the activities of the said club. Based on the written instructions sent by the second respondent herein, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 states that no written complaint was made by the petitioner against third respondent-club and if the petitioner approaches I Town Police Station, Srikakulam, complaining of the activities of third respondent-club, necessary action would be initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that no written complaint has been made to the respondents- Police. Though it is submitted that an oral complaint has been made, there is no material to show, at any point of time, the petitioner has approached the respondents- Police and complained of the alleged unlawful activities alleged to be going on, in third respondent-club. Hence, no relief as sought can be granted. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear if any written complaint is filed by the petitioner, I am sure that respondents 1 and 2 would initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 5, 2010 MRR