IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4789 of 2009 Between: Smt. Madana Laxmamma W/o. Yadagiri #17-28, Srinagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Women and Child Welfare Department, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Women and Child Welfare Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Madana Prahalada Rao S/o. Yadagiri #17-45/2, Srinagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ/order or direction more particularly writ of Mandamus by calling records declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.1 and 2 in initiating prosecution against the Respondent No.3 as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultravires and consequently directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to take necessary action in prosecuting the complaint given by the petitioner to the 1st respondent dt. 18-2-2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.V.GOPALA RAO Counsel for Respondents 1&2: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELF. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4789 of 2009 ORDER: The 3rd respondent is the son of the petitioner. Alleging that the 3rd respondent is harassing her in several methods, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the Project Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on 18.02.2009. Her grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. Even from a perusal of the complaint made by the petitioner, it is evident that the dispute is in relation to collection of rents for certain premises. In case the 3rd respondent is interfering with the rights of the petitioner, she can approach the Civil Court by filing a suit or can make a complaint to the police. There is hardly anything that the respondents 1 and 2 can do in a matter of this nature. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedies by filing a suit or by approaching the police. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY 12th March, 2009. IBL