IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3893 of 2008 Between: 1 Malli Bhaskar S/o.Late Samuel R/o.Adinarayanapuram Eepurupalem Post, Chirala Mandal Prakasam District 2 Malli Jeevamma W/o.late Samuel R/o.Adinarayanapuram Eepurupalem Post, Chirala Mandal Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, SP office, Ongole Prakasam District, AP. 2 The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam Bhavan Prakasam District, Ongole AP. 3 The Director, Dept of Indian System Medical & Homeopathy Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department, IRCS Building, 1st Red Cross 1st Road New Delhi-110001. 4 The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 5 The Principal Secretary to Govt of AP., Department of Tribal Welfare And Social Welfare Secretariat Building, Hyderabad-28, AP. 6 The Commissioner Family Welfare and Health, Government of AP., Sultan Bazar, Kothi, Hyderabad, AP. 7 The District Registrar of Societies , District .Registrar office, Bhagya Nagar, IInd Line Extension, Vijayanagar colony, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP. 8 National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, rep.by its Chairman,Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi. 9 Pradesh Congress Committee, represented by its Secretary, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. 10 Madigani Gurunadham S/o. late Venkateswarlu Ramakrishnapuram, Chirala Prakasam District, AP. .....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 a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the offical respondents in not taking any action after conducting investigation and enquiry in pursuance of the representations filed by the petitioners dated 26.1.2008 30.1.2008 and 3.2.2008 and continuing releasing funds to the party Respondent Association/League as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional violating Articles, 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the official Respondents 1 to 9 to consider the allegations levelled against the party Respondent by the petitioners in their representations dated 26.1.2008 30.1.2008 and 3.2.2008 and take appropriate action against the party Respondent after conducting enquiry and issue further directions restraining the Respondents No.3 to 7 from releasing the Government funds to the party Respondent Association/League and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for Respondents No: GOVERNMENT PELADER FOR HOME MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have made two grievances. Firstly, respondent No.1 is not looking into the report, which was sought to be filed before the concerned Police Station against Respondent No.10, but the said report was not accepted by the concerned Police Station Officer. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent No.1 will look into the copy of the report, which has been forwarded to him. We are sure that Respondent No.1 will look into it and shall do the needful in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the grievance ventilated by the petitioners with regard to the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent does not survive. The second grievance, which has been ventilated by the petitioners in the petition, is with regard to the utilization of grant given to Respondent No.10. It has been alleged that the amount given to Respondent No.10 by way of grant is not being properly utilized. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri Rajasekhar Reddy appearing for Central Government authorities has submitted that the averments made in the petition shall be looked into by the concerned authorities and it shall also be seen whether the amount of grant, which has been given to Respondent No.10, has been properly utilized. He has assured that if it is found that Respondent No.10 has not properly utilized the amount of grant, appropriate action shall be taken by the concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible. In the light of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the second grievance made out by the petitioners also does not survive. In view of the above statements made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents, in our opinion, the grievances ventilated in the writ petition would not survive. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 4th March, 2008 T.CH. SURYA RAO, J vtv