THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26223 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have submitted a complaint to respondents 1 to 6 against the 7th respondent making certain allegations. She prays for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 6 in not considering her representations as erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of provisions of the S.C.&S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’). Consequential direction is sought against respondents 1 to 6 to investigate the complaint. The petitioner is working as a Medical Officer in the Cine Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary. The Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organization, Government of India happens to be the immediate superior to the petitioner. The 7th respondent occupied that post. From the averments made in the affidavit and the supporting material, it is evident that the root cause for the complaints submitted by the petitioner or filing of the writ petition is addressing of a letter by the petitioner to the 7th respondent and the making of a phone call by the latter to the petitioner. That was in relation to the duties to be performed by the petitioner as a mobile dispensary. The petitioner addressed a letter to the 7th respondent stating that the dispensary could not function on account of certain repair to the vehicle and has underlined parts of letter with red ink. The 7th respondent in turn called the petitioner and is said to have informed that the repair has since been attended to. According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent made an observation to the effect that the petitioner has drawn 77,000/- from the Government and he is sorry that the persons of such nature are drawing Government funds. The 7th respondent on the other hand filed a complaint on 01.02.2009 before the Commissioner of Police Hyderbad alleging that the petitioner and her husband, who is working as Circle Inspector of Police came to his office and threatened to file a case under the provisions of S.T. and S.C. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’). Narrating these developments in a comprehensive manner, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the 1st respondent on 05.12.2008 and ultimately requested that action be taken against the 7th respondent. Another limb of the grievance of the petitioner is that though she submitted a complaint against her driver to the 7th respondent, no action has been taken by the latter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government. The petitioner is not clear as to the nature of reliefs claimed against the 7th respondent. If according to her, the 7th respondent has committed any crime under the provisions of the Act, she has to submit the complaint before the concerned police station and pursue the proceedings in accordance with law. Such a complaint does not appear to have been made. The role to be played by the 1st respondent in this regard is limited. It is only when a semblance of atrocity is noticed against an individual belonging to S.C. and S.T. that the action can be initiated. As observed earlier, the complaint is very vague and uncertain and no action can be expected on it. At any rate, this Court cannot compel the 1st respondent or for that matter, respondents 2 to 6 to initiate action on the strength of such general and vague complaints. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedies in accordance with law before the concerned Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.12.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26223 of 2009 Date: 10.12.2009 JSU