IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8132 of 2008 Between: Mudiverthi Krishna Murthy S/o. Vemaiah R/o. Opp. N.T.S. Chinna Podugupadu, Kovur (M), Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Kovur, Nellore District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Kovur, Nellore District. 4 Pattapu Chandraiah S/o. Meeraiah R/o. Arundathiyawada Jammkipalem (Village) H/o. Inamadugu Post, Kovur Mandal, Nellore. 5 Malapati Venkateswarlu S/o. Venkaiah R/o. Arundathiyawada Jammkipalem (Village) H/o. Inamadugu Post, Kovur Mandal, Nellore. 6 Thallapaka Ramaiah R/o. Arundathiyawada Jammkipalem (Village) H/o. Inamadugu Post, Kovur Mandal, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.L.N.RAO FOR MRS.A.BALA BHARATHI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the complaint submitted by the petitioner against respondent Nos.4 to 6 as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide police protection to enable him to perform temple Utsavas from 18.04.2008 to 24.04.2008. Heard Sri K.L.N.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that with his personal funds and monies collected from the villagers, he constructed a temple in Jammipalem Village in the year 2004 and a Committee was constituted by resolution, dated 01.05.2002 passed by the village elders. The petitioner claims to be a Member of the said Committee and in-charge of maintaining accounts and performance of Nitya Nivedya Deeparadhana. He averred that disputes arose between him and respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the management of the temple and he filed O.S.No.118 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District for permanent injunction and I.A.No.459 of 2005 in the said suit seeking ad interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.4 to 6 and their men from trespassing into the temple premises and interfering with the activities of the petitioner and that the said Court granted an order of injunction on 15.04.2005. He further averred that on the eve of commencement of special Utsavas from 18.04.2008 to 24.04.2008, when he came to know that respondent Nos.4 to 6 were attempting to cause nuisance and interfere in the temple affairs, he approached respondent No.2 and gave a complaint against them. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not taken any action. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The averments contained in the affidavit are vague to the core. While no specific allegations were made against respondent Nos.4 to 6 regarding the manner in which they are seeking to interfere, the petitioner failed to give the date on which he approached respondent No.2 with the complaint. He failed to file a copy of the complaint said to have been given by him to respondent No.2. Moreover, on his own pleading, in the suit filed by him, the Court of Junior Civil Judge granted an order of injunction against respondent Nos.4 to 6. If the said respondents have been unduly interfering in violation of the order of injunction, the petitioner is not remediless, inasmuch as he could have moved the civil Court for action against respondent Nos.4 to 6 for disobedience of the injunction order. It would have been also open to the petitioner to move the said Court for police protection to comply with the order of injunction. The petitioner failed to give any reasons whatsoever for not availing these remedies. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10736 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th APRIL, 2008 kvni