IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11865 of 2008 Between: Penchala Damodar Rao S/o Narayana Rao, GDKJOCPI, R/o H. No. 4-2-82/1, Annapurna Colony, NTPC Ramagundam mandal Karimnagar district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, II Town, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District G.M. Colony, Godavarikhani Karimnagar district. 3 G. Rama Rao S/o Rajaiah R/o H. No. T/2-3, G.M. Golony Godavarikhani Karimnagar District. 4 Penchala Uma W/o Penchala Damodar rao R/o H. No. T/2-3, G,M. Golony Godavarikhani Karimnagar 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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in illegally detaining the petitioner in the police station and visiting the house of the petitioner and harassing him to pay his voluntary retirement beneﬁts of Rs. 3,77,123/- to the respondents 3 and 4 herein as illegal and without any authority or law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11865 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition illustrates another vague and breezy attempt at initiating a litigation. The petitioner complains that the 2nd respondent illegally detained him in a police station and was frequently visiting his house and harassing him to pay the voluntary retirement beneﬁts of Rs.3,77,123/- to the respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is the petitioner’s first wife and the 3rd respondent is the elder son-in-law. The petitioner applied to the Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., for voluntary retirement, which was accepted and he got the beneﬁts thereof, by way of a cheque for Rs. 3,77,123/-. Petitioner disclaims any responsibility, liability or obligation under any law to the Respondents 3 and 4 out of the voluntary retirement beneﬁts received by him. He alleges that the Respondents 3 and 4 were demanding the V.R.S. beneﬁts and that the 2nd respondent summoned the petitioner to the police station on 27.4.2008 to settle the matter with the 4th respondent. The other allegations with regard to the unlawful conduct of the 2nd respondent, are asserted to be in transgression of the laws and oﬃcial responsibility of the 2 nd respondent, but without any material particulars. The petitioner has not complained to the 1st respondent about any such conduct of the 2nd respondent despite the fact that the 2nd respondent is under the administrative and disciplinary control of the 1st respondent. Why the petitioner has chosen to implead the 1st respondent is not clear from the writ petition. The 1st respondent appears to have been impleaded only to pad up the importance of the lis and for no other purpose. The petitioner, if the grievance were true, could have complained to the jurisdictional police station about any such conduct of the 2nd respondent, if constitutes commission of a cognizable oﬀence. If it is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had wrongfully conﬁned the petitioner in abuse of the 2nd respondent’s oﬃcial position, such allegation would constitute information as to commission of a cognizable oﬀence and the petitioner could have lodged such a complaint with the 1st respondent. The petitioner also had a remedy by way of ﬁling a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Instead of pursuing either of these eﬀective and alternative remedies, which required forensical discipline in pleadings and proof, a complaint to be lodged complete with facts and material particulars, the petitioner is rest content to ﬁle a breezy aﬃdavit making general, vague and unsubstantiated allegations. In the veriﬁcation of the aﬃdavit also, no discipline is apparent. The petitioner has veriﬁed that the contents of the entire aﬃdavit including those paragraphs relating to the relief portion are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. The second respondent has ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit clearly and categorically denying each and every vague allegation in the writ petition. As is apparent from the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is satisﬁed with such blank denial of the breezy allegations. The grievance of the petitioner, if true, is a serious condemnation of the professionalism, neutrality and ﬁdelity to law by our public servants including police oﬃcers. But the casual litigational strategies pursued, as in this case, are neither conducive to disciplining the alleged unlawful conduct by public authorities, nor are productive of any beneﬁt to the aggrieved citizen. Such writ petitions are the common occurrence of these Courts and have become a statistical irrelevance. In view of the blank denial of the allegations in the writ petition in the counter of the 2nd respondent dated 7.7.2008, to which no subsequent pleading is ﬁled by the petitioner in rebuttal of the denials, no relief is warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and since there is a quiescent acceptance of the denial in the writ petition, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), payable by the petitioner to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 6th August, 2008 pnb