IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9417 of 2010 Between: K. Venkata Ranga Rao … Petitioner And The Deputy Inspector General of Police Eluru Range, Eluru, W.G. District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.S.N. Naidu Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9417 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in taking action against respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are involved in a civil dispute over a theatre situated at Machilipatnam. On a complaint given by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 registered crime No.48 of 2010 on 02.03.2010 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.2717 of 2010 seeking quashing of the said case and he pleaded that this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in the said criminal petition. The petitioner specifically alleged that at the instance of respondent No.5, respondent No.3 has been continuously harassing him and he has given specific details of how he is being harassed by respondent No.3. The petitioner stated that he made a number of representations to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he filed copies of those representations in this writ petition, wherein the harassment allegedly meted out by respondent No.3 has been graphically described by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said representations, neither of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is taking any action. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I am of the view that when serious allegations are made against a subordinate police officer, it is incumbent upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 to respond to the representations and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Otherwise, people would tend to lose faith in the system itself. In this view of the matter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations made by the petitioner on the alleged harassment by respondent No.3 and his interference in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5, take appropriate action in accordance with law and communicate the action so taken to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12148 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.04.2010 ES