IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19777 of 2007 Between: M/s. Raka Impex Private Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, P. Satish Kumar, Rajabather Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. … Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Gangarami Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19777 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the mining operations of the petitioner company and not taking action on the complaints given by it, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to investigate into the complaint, register the case and provide adequate protection to it to carry out mining operations. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 regarding the land over which the petitioner is claiming mining rights, a civil dispute is also pending over the said property and the grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.4 removed 150 metric tonnes of Quartz mineral from the site and it gave a complaint on 03.09.2007 to the police, no action is taken by them. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that on the complaint given by the petitioner on 04.09.2007, Crime No.70 of 2007 was registered against respondent No.4 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and investigation was commenced in which seven witnesses were examined by recording their detailed statements. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the petitioner did not produce any record in support of its version that it took lease of the land during the year 2001 for 20 years for conducting mining operations and that no witnesses were examined in support of the said version of the petitioner. It is further stated that in the absence of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, respondent No.3 sought for permission from the higher authorities to refer the complaint of the petitioner as false and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudur accorded permission in that regard. It is further stated that final report referring the case as false will be filed shortly before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioner that the police have not taken action on its complaint therefore ceases to exist. As and when a report is filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate referring the case as false, the petitioner shall be free to take appropriate steps before the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing protest petition. As regards the prayer for direction to the police to given protection to the petitioner for carrying on mining operations, in view of the dispute over the petitioner’s right to carry on the mining operations, it is not possible for this Court to direct the police to give protection to it. The petitioner is entitled to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction seeking appropriate orders against respondent No.4 or any other person, if it is prevented from carrying out mining operations. It is only in the event of the competent Court passing an order that it can seek police protection in the course of execution of such an order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25502 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.04.2008 ES