IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16127 of 2009 Between: Nagineni Jaganmohan Rao S/o. SAtyanarayana Rao Mutharam (Manthini ) Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad. 2 TheChief Engineer ( R&B) ( C.E. NABARD Scheme ) Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer ( R&B ) Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 4 The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar ( East ) Division, Karimnagar. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthini, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not passing orders on petitioner's representations dt. 13.02.2009 and 26.05.2009 as illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent to pass appropriate order or protect the interest of the State as well as the general public. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 4:GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for Respondent No.5:GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has made a grievance that some road is being laid in a reserved forest area, which is not permissible. The petitioner had made representations to respondent Nos.2 and 3, but the said representations have not been replied to by the said respondents till today. Looking to the facts of the case, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to look into the representations addressed to them by the petitioner and give suitable reply to the petitioner. If the averments and allegations made in the representations are not correct, the petitioner shall be informed accordingly so that the petitioner can avail alternative legal remedy available to him, if he still feels that he is right. The reply shall be given by the concerned respondent within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order by them. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th AUGUST, 2009. Note: c.c. in two (2) days. bnr/kvni