IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5675 of 2010 Between: K. Shiva Kumar … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. J. Sumathi Counsel for respondent Nos.2-4: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5675 of 2010 ORDER:- In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner, who is a Ward Member of Navipet Grampanchayat, Nizamabad District, is that though respondent Nos.5 to 8 have unauthorizedly demolished the library, which previously was a police station, and taken away teakwood and other building material worth about Rs.3 lakhs, neither respondent No.1 nor respondent Nos.2 to 4 have taken any action. The petitioner claimed to have submitted representation dated 05.10.2009 to respondent No.1 through Prajavani. He further stated that when he approached respondent No.4 to lodge a complaint, the latter has intentionally refused to register the same and that therefore he has sent the complaint through registered post on 27.10.2009 which was returned with an endorsement “refused to receive”. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, I am of the opinion that both respondent Nos.1 and 4 are under legal obligation to consider the representation and the complaint respectively. If respondent Nos.5 to 8 have acted in the manner as alleged by the petitioner, their acts attract appropriate action by respondent No.1, who is the head of the panchayat institutions at the district level and by respondent No.4, who is entrusted with the duty of registering the criminal complaints, if the acts complained of constitute offences. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, respondent Nos.1 and 4 are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the representation and the complaint of the petitioner respectively. Since respondent No.4 is stated to have refused to receive the complaint, the contents of the writ affidavit shall be treated as a complaint and appropriate action be taken. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.7293 and 7294 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.03.2010 ES