IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.1041 of 2006 Between: Mohd.Hamid Ali Khan. … Petitioner And The Director General, Department of Vigilance and Enforcement, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy. Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs: i) declare the action of the respondent in not investigating the allegations and illegalities pointed out by the petitioner in his representation dt.21-4-2005 and book the culprits, as illegal and arbitrary. ii) consequently direct the respondent to investigate the issue raised by the petitioner in his representation dt.21- 4-2005 and take appropriate action as per law against the errant and corrupt officials. iii) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, I & CAD Department, IB Division, Mancherial, Adilabad District. He claims to have made a representation on 21-4-2005 pointing out certain irregularities, misappropriation and misutilization of public funds by some of the employees of the Irrigation Department working in the office of the Executive Engineer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, who received the said representation, has not investigated into the same. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary to Government, General Administration (Vigilance and Enforcement) Department, it is, inter alia, stated that various allegations raised by the petitioner, against some of the employees of the Irrigation Department, were under examination by the Superintending Engineer concerned, Secretary to Government, Collector and Director General, Anti- Corruption Bureau; that as the issues raised by him pertain to administrative matters, an enquiry was already conducted by the Department through the Executive Engineer; and that the petitioner’s representation was sent to the Principal Secretary to Government and Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD Department, for taking necessary action. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has not established his locus to seek initiation of action against certain employees. It is not his case that he is espousing the public cause. Though he made several allegations against certain persons, they were not impleaded as parties in this Writ Petition. In their absence, it is not possible for this Court to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against them. The petitioner has not come out with any plausible explanation for omitting to implead those persons in seeking initiation of action against them. Principles of natural justice require that a person, who is likely to be affected by an order, is required to be heard before any such order is passed. Therefore, no order, which may prejudicially affect the third parties, can be passed by this Court, in their absence. Further, if the petitioner has felt that an offence has been committed by those persons, he can always file a criminal complaint and avail his remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the complaint has not received proper action by the Police by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I find no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.1209 of 2006 and 22103 of 2008 are dismissed as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:03-6-2009 MNR