IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos.13704, 17223, 17275, of 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 in not taking any action on the Petitioner's complaint dated 14.06.2018 as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Principles of Natural Justice of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents 2 and 4 to conduct the Departmental Enquiry on the Petitioner’s complaint dt.14.06.2018 and take action on the 5th Respondent as per law.” 2. Sri Manda Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a farmer and he made a complaint dated 14.06.2018 to Respondent Nos.2 to 4 against Respondent No.5, who is a lineman for taking appropriate action against him, alleging that, Respondent No.5 was not responding to the public phone calls and causing disturbance. It is further alleged that, Respondent No.5 engaged two private assistants and they are demanding amounts in the name of Respondent No.5. Learned counsel would further submit that, a direction may be given to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action against Respondent No.5. 3. Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that there is no truth in the allegations made against Respondent No.5. It is submitted that, after receiving the complaint, they made an enquiry and came to know that Respondent No.5 is a good worker. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, despite the same, 2 Respondent No.5 was transferred from Poduru Section Officer to Palakollu Town Section Office four months ago and the relief sought in the present petition has become infructuous and the hence, the petition may be disposed of. 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the Petitioner, describing himself as a farmer, made a complaint against Respondent No.5, who is an employee in the department of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as a lineman. Petitioner alleged against Respondent No.5 that he is not providing proper service to the public, he engaged two linemen as his assistants and they are collecting money from the public. Counter would show that the Respondents-Authorities, after receiving the complaint, made their enquiries and came to the conclusion that, because of the internal differences, the complaint might have been made and in fact, Respondent No.5 is a good worker. That apart, it is also represented and mentioned in the counter that Respondent No.5 is transferred from that place about four months prior to filing of the present petition. Viewed from any angle, this petition needs to be disposed of. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of as no further orders are required, since the Respondents have acted upon the complaint of the Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 3 Date:27.03.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26952 of 2018 Dt.27.03.2025 Dinesh