IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR BETWEEN G.Balaji and another AND WRIT PETITION No.32883 of 2014 ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Primary grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that when there was interference with petitioners’ construction activity, by certain third parties, they approached respondent No.4 with a complaint, dated 12.09.2014, requesting them to take action. However, alleging that respondent No.4 refused to accept the said complaint, petitioners have sent the said complaint Ex.P1 to the Commissioner of Police under registered post with acknowledgment due. Alleging that no action is taken on the said complaint by any of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the Inspector of Police, Malakpet Police Station, respondent No.4, states that the complaint of the petitioners was received on 18.09.2014 by respondent No.4 and a general diary entry was immediately made and the preliminary enquiry is being conducted. It is stated that appropriate action will be taken based on the enquiry, which is pending. It is further stated that the petitioners did not approach the police station after sending the complaint and, as such, petitioners’ statement is necessary for the purpose of completing the preliminary enquiry. The instructions further state that there appears to be a civil dispute, however, that matter would be decided after completing the preliminary enquiry and appropriate decision will be taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners will approach respondent No.4 and cooperate with the enquiry.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondent No.4 to record the statement of the petitioners and take appropriate further action in the matter as required under law by registering an F.I.R. or otherwise. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 10, 2014 LMV