IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.6125 OF 2008 Between: Budagala Nageswara Rao. … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadeva Counsel for the respondents: --- This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considering representation dated 5-2-2008 filed by the petitioner, as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary, and, consequently, direct respondent No.2 to dispose of the said representation dated 5-2-2008. Heard Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The grievance of the petitioner is that Sri U.Mahathi Sankar, Additional Public Prosecutor attached to the II Additional Assistant Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur - who is conducting trial against him, an accused in S.C.No.423 of 2004 - has been deliberately delaying the conclusion of trial and hearing of the case for the alleged reason that the petitioner is not meeting his unlawful demand for payment of bribe. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record, I am of the view that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) The said Sri U.Mahathi Shankar, against whom the petitioner is seeking action, is not made a party to the Writ Petition. In his absence, it is not possible for this Court to consider and give a finding on various allegations made against him by the petitioner; (2) Except the mere assertion that the said Additional Public Prosecutor demanded bribe, he did not file any material in support of the same, including the affidavit of Sri Govinda Seetaramaiah, in whose presence he allegedly demanded bribe from the petitioner; and (3) If prolonging of the Sessions Case against the petitioner is on account of the illegal demand of the Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no reason for the petitioner to resist adjournment of the case through his counsel. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J. DT.24-3-2008 MNR