Writ Petition No. 5049 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the complaints and representations of the petitioner and not taking any action thereon, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a partner in M/s.Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills, which was renamed as M/s.RG Khandasari Sugar Mills and further, renamed as M/s.Anjani Khandasari. It is also the case of the

petitioner that for dissolution of the said firm, he along with the other partners filed O.S.No.805 of 1977 in the Court of learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and in the said suit, the Advocate Receiver was appointed to take inventory of the factory. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as some unsocial elements are committing theft of machinery from the said factory, he had been sending representations including representation, dated

18.04.2011, to the respondents. In spite of the same, no action has been taken. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to representations, dated

18.04.2011 and 07.09.2011, submitted by the petitioner, and stated that the petitioner submitted further complaints through E-Mail. I have perused copies of such representations, in which, the petitioner referred to certain representations dated 07.12.1997, 28.07.1998, 10.02.1997, 28.07.1997 and 17.02.1981. Thereafter, there are no representations submitted by the petitioner. It is alleged therein that some unsocial elements in collusion with defendant No.7, by name, Govind Ram, Defendant No.12, by name, Shankarlal, and their mentors, by names, Guljarilal and Mahesh Kumar Kedia, are trying to commit theft in the said factory by removing the machinery. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such removal, he can as well seek remedies before the civil Court but by referring to the aforesaid representations and alleging that certain individuals are trying to remove the machinery from the factory, he cannot seek registration of crime. It is to be noticed that though complaints were lodged against certain individuals, whose names were mentioned therein, they are not even made party respondents in this Writ Petition. In any event, if the petitioner feels that aforesaid persons have committed any offence, he can avail the alternative remedy as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 27th FEBRUARY, 2012. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J