IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13598 of 2009 Between: 1 Maduri Ashok, S/o. Late Yellaiah, R/o. H.No. 19-9-450/1, Shambunipet, Warangal City, Warangal District. 2 Balukonda Mahender, S/o. Narayana, R/o. H.No. 25-8-145, Bapuji Nagar, Kazipet, Warangal City, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Station House Officer, Mills Colony Police Station, Fort Road, Warangal, Warangal District. 2 Samatha Coperative Housing Society Limited, Rep. byits President, Kodisetty Madhav, S/o. Chakrapani, Aged about 41 Years, R/o. H.No. 16-03-924, Fort Road, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Feeling aggrieved by the alleged inaction of respondent No.1 in registering the petitioners’ purported complaint, dated 10.04.2009, they filed the present writ petition. In their affidavit, the petitioners averred that there are civil disputes pending between them and respondent No.2 society. When respondent No.2 tried to interfere with their possession, the petitioners filed O.S.No.103 of 1994 against it and also O.S.No.201 of 1994 against the legal heirs of late K.Laxmaiah and that a common decree was passed in the said suits on 22.04.2000 and it became final. The petitioners further averred that when the President of respondent No.2 uprooted the boundary stones of the property in question, they filed O.S.No.739 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and that the said Court granted ad interim injunction on 04.12.2008. They also pleaded that in spite of the said injunction order, the President of respondent No.2 society with the active support of his henchmen came to the suit land on 10.04.2009, pushed the petitioners and beat them severely abusing in filthy and un-parliamentary language. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they approached respondent No.1 with a complaint, no action was taken thereon. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that he has not received any complaint from the petitioners. The petitioners have not filed proof of submitting complaint to respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be found fault with for not taking action against respondent No.2. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.1 with a fresh complaint and if they so approach, respondent No.1 shall entertain the complaint and take action according to law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17710 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th JULY, 2009. kvni