IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.8758 of 2011 Between: Pratattipati Yesuratnam Kumar. … Petitioner And The Gram Panchayat, Satrampadu village, Vatluru Mandal, West Godavari District, Rptd., by its Executive Officer and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Jyothi Prasad. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj for R.2. Sri G.Elisha for R.1. None for R.3 & R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in preventing respondent Nos.3 and 4 from encroaching the panchayat road, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. On his own showing the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.401 of 2008 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, against respondent Nos.3 and 4 with the same grievance as is sought to be espoused in this Writ Petition. The petitioner failed to pursue the said suit properly, leading to its dismissal for non- prosecution. The petitioner averred that he filed an application for restoration of the said suit, which is pending. The purported cause of action on which the present Writ Petition is filed is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have now started raising pucca construction over the road margin and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not taking any action despite the petitioner’s representation. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioner is primarily and predominantly a pure civil dispute between him and respondent No.4. The petitioner having already availed the appropriate remedy of a civil suit, has evidently abandoned the said action in the mid way and has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a similar relief. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition being a purely private dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner should have been diligent in pursuing his suit and prevented respondent Nos.3 and 4 by seeking an injunction from raising construction over the road margin. Even now the petitioner can pursue his application for restoration of the civil suit, pending before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.10870 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01-4-2011 MNR