AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.Raghunandan Rao, J
The petitioner is said to be a Government Teacher, residing in Atmakur, Nellore District. It is the case of the petitioner that three persons namely Sri Kandi Chandra Reddy, Korsipati Hazarath Reddy and Challa Mallikarjuna, having enmity against the petitioner, had obtained certain human brain reading machinery from the Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad and used the same on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the CFSL authorities at Hyderabad and sought deactivation of the machine, being used by these three persons, and for recovery of the said machine from these three persons. The petitioner has given details of the various persons he has approached for assistance in this matter. The petitioner has now approached this Court for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamous, declaring the inaction of the Director, CFSL (CBI), New Delhi, who is the 1st respondent, in not deactivating the alleged machine and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to deactivate the machine.
The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that neither the CFSL (CBI), New Delhi nor any of its branches or units had conducted any forensic examination of the petitioner at any point of time. The 1st respondent also stated that there is no procedure/method of reading the mind of the person by looking on the impressions or finger prints of a person and as such, the question of deactivation of a machine which is alleged to have been used against the petitioner would not arise. The 1st respondent also stated that the petitioner, by way of a letter dated 04.07.2014, had been informed that the grievances raised by the petitioner do not pertain to the 1st respondent.
The petitioner, who has appeared as a party-in-person, states that the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent has not been signed by the 1st respondent and it is a fabrication.
The counter affidavit of the 1st respondent had been filed by the standing counsel for the C.B.I and I do not find any reason to hold that the said counter affidavit has not been signed by the 1st respondent.
In view of the averments in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is clear that no machine has been entrusted to anybody by the 1st respondent to read the brain of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the question of deactivating such a machine and obtaining the return of the machine by the 1st respondent does not arise.
In view of the above, there are no merits in this writ petition and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.