IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 29017 of 2008 Between: L. Mohan Raj S/o. Rayanna Leo Rubber Industries, H.NO.13-2-267/A45/1, Shivalal Nagar, Puranapool, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Social Welfare (POA) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 5 The Tahsildar, Tirumalgiri Mandal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not allotting a vacant site to the atrocity victim at Thokatta Village, Tirmulgherry Mandal, Secunderabad, since the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.116 & 118 SW (POA-1) Department dt. 31.10.2001 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner seeks a creative relief, which runs as under: “declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not allotting a vacant site to the atrocity victim at Thokatta Village, Trimulgherry Mandal, Secunderabad, since the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.116 and 118 SW (POA-1) Department, dated 31-10-2001 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioner claims to belong to a Scheduled Caste. He borrowed Rs.1.90 lakhs from Nirdosh Chit Fund Company and claims to have repaid the same. However, it is alleged that one Ramakishore Tiwari the Chief of Nirdosh Chit Fund Company sent “Rowdies” to the petitioner’s residence, who abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him. Thereafter the Chit Fund Company influenced the registration of a case under Section 448 and 506 of IPC, which was tried as C.C.No. 440 of 2008 before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad whereat eventually the petitioner was recorded as not guilty for the offences charged. The petitioner then invoked the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Ramkishore Tiwari. The writ petition is silent as to what transpired on this complaint. On the basis of orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.3, SW (H1) Department, dated 16-1-1993, the petitioner claims to have received compensation of Rs.50,000/-. However, on the basis of another set of administrative orders in G.O.Ms.No. 118, SW (POA), Department, dated 31-10-2001 the petitioner sought allotment of a house site at Thokatta village, Secunderabad towards his rehabilitation. The 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner’s request by an order dated 8-12-2005. Assuming that the 4th respondent’s order is a statutory order, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent. There being no response, this writ petition is filed. G.O.Ms.No.118, SW (POPA) Department dated 31-10-2001 spells out administrative guidelines issued to the Social Welfare Department to sensitize District Collector to take prompt action in providing relief and rehabilitation to SC/ST victims of atrocities. The petitioner’s complaint against Ramkishore Tiwari of Nirdosh Chit Fund Company still appears to be pending and there is no finding that the petitioner is or had been a victim of atrocities under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the circumstances, the administrative instructions in G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 31-10-2001 are not, as at present, attracted. In any event, since it is not the petitioner’s case that he has been a victim of atrocities at the instance of the State or any public officer, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of a direction to the State to compensate him, treating his alleged persecution by Ramkishore Tiwari as a State action or a conduct for which the State may vicariously be liable. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 12th June, 2009 GRR