IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4521 of 2008 Between: Dwarampudi Nagendra Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Penumantra Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (P & R), West Godavari District, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Bhupati Raju Ravinder Raju S/o. Satyanarayana Raju Penumantra Village & Mandal, West Godavari 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 No. 1 to 3 herein in not taking any action on petitioners representation dt. 22.01.08 which was issued through his counsel against respondent No.4 herein who is a public servant and acting against the service rules by doing business and continuing on the rolls of the political partly and participating in the political activities, as illegal, arbitrary, against service rules and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Penumantra Village and Mandal of West Godavari District. His grievance is that though the fourth respondent, who is working as a Village Servant, is actively participating in the politics and is running a cable network, respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to promote him to a higher post, instead of taking a disciplinary action. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader has produced a record, which discloses that on earlier occasion, punishment was imposed against the fourth respondent, and as of now, no proceedings are pending against him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The petitioner had ventilated his grievance, in the context of promotion, which is said to be in offing for the fourth respondent. Strictly speaking, this is not the forum to examine the illegality, or otherwise of any promotion, which can be extended to the fourth respondent. All the same, the grievance, which is in the form of a representation to the first respondent, needs to be taken into account before any promotion is effected to the fourth respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Respondents 1 and 2 shall examine the matter, with reference to the representation made by the petitioner, as and when the case of the fourth respondent is taken up for promotion. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) GJ .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}