THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13858 of 2010 Date: 18.6.2010 Between: Nettem Sri Ram Choudary, Srinagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. ………...Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and another. …… Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13858 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Nettem Sri Ram Choudary with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not conducting detailed enquiry and not taking any action on the petitioner’s representation dated 23.8.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner worked as a lecturer in Government Polytechnic College, Nellore and retired voluntarily due to health problems. He shifted his family to Hyderabad and has been residing near Sri Venkateswara Temple, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner before II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.260 of 2010 for quashing the criminal proceedings and the said criminal petition is pending consideration. It is the version of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent with the help of some gundas is threatening him and his wife over cell phone. The petitioner filed complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad-1st respondent with regard to the threatening calls received from the 2nd respondent. There being no action on the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his wife are receiving threatening calls over cell phone from the 2nd respondent, and, therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the 1st respondent to take action on the representation made by him. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent already filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same is pending investigation. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.260 of 2010 for quashing the criminal proceedings. Such is the situation, it is not a fit case to grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:18.6.2010 mrb