IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19787 of 2007 Between: Grace Shashikala D/o Late D. J. George, in S.B.H. R/o H. No. 81/B, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Tirumalagiri PS., Cyberabad. 3 S. Laxminarayana S/o late S. Bala Narasimha R/o Qr. No. 37-D, GPRA Campus, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad. 4 P. Ganesh S/o Late P. Balaiah, R/o Plot NO. 64, Sri Sai Nagar, Jillaguda, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SREENIVASA SARMA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the complaint of the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 as illegal. Heard Sri S.Sreenivasa Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the view I am taking, I do not feel it necessary to issue notices to respondent Nos.3 and 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.05.2007, respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with their followers came to her flat and warned her that if she does not vacate the same in a few days, she will face dire consequences and that though the petitioner lodged a complaint on the same day before respondent No.2, no action was taken for registering the said complaint. The petitioner’s further case is that she filed a representation before respondent No.1 on 15.05.2007, but he did not take any action too. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that respondent No.2 has not received any complaint whatsoever as claimed by the petitioner either on 14.05.2007 or on any subsequent date. He further stated that respondent No.2 had in fact, requested the petitioner to give a written complaint for taking appropriate action and that despite the same, no such complaint has been given by the petitioner. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to file a written complaint before respondent No.2 and on receipt of the same, he shall act in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.25512 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th MARCH, 2008 kvni