JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The principal prayer is that Departmental proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Police Act against the petitioner on 3rd September, 1984 should not be allowed to continue unless and until the respondents comply with the provisions contained in para 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations. 2. On 3rd September, 1984, a charge-sheet was submitted to the petitioner in which the allegation made was that on 15th March, 1984 he refused to register a first information report and instead demanded illegal gratification. The petitioner made a representation which was addressed to the Inspector General of Police. This was presumably done under Para 511 of the U.P. Police Regulation. It appears that this representation was not forwarded to the Inspector General of Police. Instead the Dy. Inspector, General Kanpur Range, retained the same to himself and he on 20th January, 1987 rejected the same. The prayer, therefore is that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range on 20th January, 1987, may be quashed. 3. The case set up by the petitioner in this Court is that a close reading of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet sent to him on 3rd September, 1984 indicates that the petitioner had committed a cognizable offence. The submission is that the departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act cannot be initiated unless a complaint is filed and investigated with regard to the commission of the cognizable offence by the petitioner. To get an appropriate remedy the petitioner however, made representation to the Inspector General of Police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that under Para 511 of the U.P. Police Regulations a representation lay to the Inspector General of Police alone against the action taken by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur on 3rd September whereby he gave a charge-sheet to the petitioner and that is why such a representation was made to that officer. Having perused para 511, I am inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The Dy. Inspector General of Police had no jurisdiction to pass an order upon the representation made by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police. His order dated 20th January, 1987, therefore stands vitiated. It is accordingly quashed. The Dy. Having perused para 511, I am inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The Dy. Inspector General of Police had no jurisdiction to pass an order upon the representation made by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police. His order dated 20th January, 1987, therefore stands vitiated. It is accordingly quashed. The Dy. Inspector General, Kanpur Range, is directed to forward the representation made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police. He shall do so within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order of this Court by the petitioner before him. The Inspector General of Police shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the same from the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range. Till the representation of the petitioner is disposed of by the Inspector General of Police, further proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act initiated against the petitioner on 3rd September, 1984 shall remain stayed. 5. On 23rd February 1987, the standing Counsel was granted time till 20th March, 1987 to file a counter affidavit. That was not done. Again on 27th March, 1987 the Standing Counsel prayed for and was granted three weeks time to file a counter affidavit. There was a default. On 6th May, 1987 the Standing Counsel prayed for three weeks further time for filing the counter affidavit. No counter affidavit is forthcoming. The Learned Standing counsel has again prayed for time to file counter affidavit. The prayer is being rejected by me. It is amazing that the orders passed by this Court are not being carried out. There is something wrong at the end of the respondents and it is high time that the higher authorities should take suitable action. In the absence of the counter affidavit this court has no other option but to accept the averments made in the writ petition as correct and dispose of the writ petition on that basis. 6. This petition succeeds and is allowed in the light of the observations indicated above. The petitioner entitled to his costs.