THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2236 of 2011 Dated 04th February, 2011 Between: B.Venkataramana …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Naga Jaya Chandra Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be an agricultural coolie and resident of Srirangapuram Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District, filed this writ petition for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not disposing of the petitioner’s representation submitted along with other Villagers on 28.01.2011 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has averred that one C.T.Gopal was a Field Officer in-charge of the works undertaken under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, that when the Villagers and some politicians made complaints against the said person, he was removed from the post of Field Officer and replaced by one Smt.G.Thirumaleswari and that respondent No.3 was appointed as Ombudsman (Special Officer) to conduct enquiry into the allegations made against C.T.Gopal. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 colluded with the said C.T.Gopal and without conducting enquiry properly, he is proposing to submit a report in favour of C.T.Gopal. Anticipating this move, the petitioner and others are stated to have made a representation to respondent No.2 against respondent No.3 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is based on unsubstantiated apprehension. Except stating that respondent No.3 is corrupt, no material is filed in support thereof. Similarly, the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is likely to submit a report in favour of C.T.Gopal is also unsupported by any material. Even if respondent No.3 has failed to conduct proper enquiry, unless he submits a report and a final order thereon is passed, no cause of action arises for the petitioner or any other aggrieved person to avail a legal remedy. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is wholly premature. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2779 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th February, 2011 VGB