I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE N.TUKARAMJI WRI T PETI TI ON No.12244 OF 2015 DATE:22.01.2026 Between:

A.Ramulu & other ……Petitioners AND The State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the inaction of the respondent No.5 herein in not acting upon the petitioners complaint dt.13-4-2015 as being arbitrary, discriminatory, atrocious and opposed to the provisions of the Special Act viz. The SC and ST (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 and consequently direct the respondents herein to act in accordance with the provisions of The SC and ST (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 while safeguarding the rights of the petitioners over their property and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice...” 2. None appeared for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits, on written instructions, that the representation of the petitioners dated 13.04.2015 has been duly considered. Crime No. 251 of 2014 was registered for offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(iv) and 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation was accordingly taken up. Upon examination of the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry, it was found that the allegations against the accused were unfounded and that the dispute was purely civil in nature. Consequently, a final report was prepared classifying the matter as “civil in nature.” Hence, the grievance of the petitioners does not survive for consideration.

5. I have perused the material on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 5 failed to act upon their representation. However, the developments reported by the respondent police authorities indicate that the representation was duly considered, leading to the registration of the above crime. Later, on completion of the investigation, a final report has been filed. In view of these developments, the grievance of the petitioners that their representation was not considered is without basis.

7. In this position, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition, as the grievance has already been effectively addressed by the respondent police authorities. Nevertheless, the right of the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies available under law against the final report is reserved, should they be so advised.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________

N.TUKARAMJI , J Date: 22.01.2026 hk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE N.TUKARAMJI WRI T PETI TI ON No.12244 OF 2015 Dated:22.01.2026 hk