O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

“to issue any writ or writs, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action on the complaint dated 22-09-2022 which is made by the petitioners and not registering the crime against respondent No.4 under the provisions of the SCs & STs (POA) Act and not taking any action in the matter as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action on the complaint dated 22-09-2022 forthwith”.

2. Mr. Mogili Anaveni, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that on 18-09-2022 at 10-30 AM, when the 1st petitioner and his father were going to their house from village, the accused persons i.e., Methri Hanmaiah, Methri Sailu and Laxmi, have beaten them with hands and legs and also threatened them with dire consequences by abusing them in filthy language in the name of their caste and when their mother came there, they also abused her and hence, they have approached the respondent police on 19-09-2022, but they have not received the complaint and advised them to withdraw the complaint as the accused are politically influenced persons. He further submits that the petitioners also gave a complaint dated 22-09-2022 against the accused, but the respondent police have not taken any action. Learned counsel submits that the in-charge of the police station is bound to register the FIR in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. when the allegations in the complaint give rise to a cognizable offence. It is also stated that the duty of the police officer has to register a case and carry out proper investigation into the matter and ascertain the cause behind the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the inaction of the respondent police is highly arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Sri A. Manoj Kumar submits that he will get instructions in this matter and file a detailed counter.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioners have failed to make the persons against whom a complaint is given as party respondents to the writ petition. On that ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Though there are no fetters in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whenever a person complains of violation of his fundamental right or statutory right, one of the self imposed restraint is when there is statutorily engrafted adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to such person to redress his grievance the court do not entertain the writ petition but relegate the party to avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeluru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, A.P. and others1, 6. The Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by l