HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16355 OF 2011 . DATED 15th June, 2011 BETWEEN Mr. G.Narsimlu …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 16355 of 2011 ORDER: Pursuant to the advertisement given by the third respondent-Zee Telugu TV channel, the petitioner approached its office/studio to settle his matrimonial dispute by participating in the programme called ‘BTHUKU JETKA BANDI’. However during the shooting of the said programme, some heated arguments were exchanged in between the petitioner, his wife and the Psychiatric Doctor who was present at the time of shooting the programme. When the petitioner objected for the said programme, the third respondent assured him that they would censor the abusive words and telecast only the relevant portion of the programme sans the abusive language used during the shooting. It is the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the said assurance, the third respondent telecasted the entire programme on 24.02.2011 at about 9.00 A.M. without censoring the abusive language used by his wife and the Psychiatric Doctor. The petitioner thereupon submitted a written complaint to the second respondent-Commissioner of police to take appropriate action against the third respondent in telecasting the programme without censoring the abusive language. The second respondent-Commissioner of Police addressed letter dated 03.5.2011 requesting the third respondent to hand over the recorded CD of the said programme immediately for the evaluation by the District Level Monitoring Committee, which was constituted under the provisions of the Cable (TV Regulation) Act, 1985. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is not taking any further action in the matter. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the case file. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 24.02.2011, the office of the second respondent addressed letter dated 03.05.2011 to the third respondent to provide the recorded CD of the said programme immediately for the evaluation by the District Level Monitoring Committee. Upon the complaint of the petitioner, the second respondent has initiated action and the subject complaint is under process. It cannot therefore be said that the second respondent has not acted upon the complaint of the petitioner. When the matter is seized of by the second respondent, the petitioner cannot have a valid and legitimate ground at this stage to approach this Court seeking further direction. Hence, no further direction at present need be given in the matter. Inasmuch as the matter is seized of by the second respondent, if the petitioner requires any further relief, he is at liberty to approach the second respondent. The affidavit of the petitioner is silent as to the rejection of any further relief sought by him. From the record, it appears that even without approaching the second respondent for further relief, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition, which, in my considered opinion, is misconceived. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 15th June, 2011. Msnro