IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21616 of 2007 Between: M/s. Sri Durga Granite Workers Enterprises, Gorantla Post & Mandal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Siva Sankar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21616 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not taking action on representations dated 19.09.2007, 20.09.2007, 26.09.2007 and 28.09.2007 filed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to take action on the abovementioned representations. Heard Sri C. Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be a society consisting of 600 members at present, that it holds a quarry lease in Sy.No.673 from the year 1997, that adjacent to the hills covered by the quarry lease, there exist poramboke lands in Sy.No.560 etc., admeasuring Ac.579.00 and the petitioner’s society is developing the said lands for the last ten years. The petitioner further averred that it has been making a request since the year 1999 to grant pattas, that when respondent No.1 tried to give pattas to other villagers, the petitioner society made representation dated 30.10.2001 requesting him to issue pattas in favour of its members and as its request was not considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, it filed appeal before respondent No.1, which is pending. The petitioner further stated that some of the villagers are interrupting its activities and in connection therewith it filed complaints on 19.09.2007, 20.09.2007, 26.09.2007 and 28.09.2007, wherein it mentioned the names of the persons for taking action against them. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the following grounds: 1) Though the petitioner named Sri P. Laxmaiah of Dharmavaram and his associates as the persons interfering with its mining activities in its complaints made to the police, it failed to implead them as parties to this writ petition. Since any order passed in this writ petition may adversely affect their interest, the writ petition cannot be entertained and disposed of on merits behind their back, and 2) If interference by the third parties named in the complaints constitutes a cognizable offence and the police concerned have not taken action thereon, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as held by the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others[1]. Hence, this writ petition filed without availing this effective remedy is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.28043 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.04.2008 ES [1] (2007) 6 SCC 171