HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12558 OF 2007 Between: K.Krishna Simha . . .Petitioner AND Abdul Saheb and others . . .Respondents :: ORDER :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri T.Ramakoteswara Rao Counsel for Respondents : Ms. Radhika for Shri O.Manoher Reddy 18th June, 2007 Per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J The petitioner, who claims to be practicing Advocate, has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 2 to 4 to take action against respondent No.1 for the alleged malpractices indulged by him. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he is the President of one of the political parties of Karamchedu Mandal; that respondent No.1 had been accepting amounts illegally from the public to see that they do not pay regular bills to the Electricity Department and that respondent No.1 influenced the public by taking illegal electricity services. The petitioner has also averred that the Vigilance Department raided the house of respondent No.1 and found that the electricity meter at his residence was tampered. The petitioner claims that though he made several representations to respondent Nos.2 to 4, they failed to take action against respondent No.1. We have heard Shri T.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because the petitioner has failed to establish his locus to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing litigation pro bono publico. He has neither averred that he has been involved in any specified social service or has been espousing the cause of the public. He has also not disclosed the source of information regarding the alleged malpractices indulged by respondent No.1. Not only this, he has not given any specific instances pertaining to the alleged corrupt practices indulged by respondent No.1. Therefore, on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition filed in purport of the public interest. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP. No.15646 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J G.S.SINGHVI, CJ 18h June, 2007 kvni