M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of the City of Mangalore in Dakshina Kannada District. In this petition he has alleged that respondents 4, 5 and 6 who are police officers have been constantly threatening and invading his privacy and a few others destroy his property. He has submitted a petition to the 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada District, a true copy of that petition is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. In that, he has done no more than inform the Superintendent of Police, the various transgressions committed by respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6. He has, therefore, asked the officers concerned to take appropriate action. ( 2 ) HE has further made a representation to the Governor of the State of Karnataka on 14-10-1989 complaining that no action has been taken against respondents 4, 5 and 6 the police officers are named and it is alleged, they are continuously causing harassment to the petitioner and the members of his family. Similarly, there is another representation dated 12-10-1989 to the Governor which is found at Annexure-C to the petition. Therefore, the present writ petition inter alia on the ground that nothing has happened on the complaints and representations made by him and therefore this Court must direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action. ( 3 ) A mandamus normally will lie only when a statutory duty is required to be performed by any authority and that authority despite the demand has not so performed the duty. In none of the enclosures to the petition is there a demand to perform any statutory duty. Undoubtedly, the Superintendent of Police, the 3rd respondent, has control, supervisory and administrative over respondents 4, 5 and 6. That he has not made any investigation or issue proper instructions to the concerned is not alleged by the petitioner. This Court presumes that a responsible officer like the Superintendent of Police in the District would have issued the necessary instruction to the officers not to commit breach of law themselves. ( 4 ) ADDED to this, the learned Government Pleader has produced the records of the case wherein it disclosed that the petitioner has presented a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Mangalore, in private complaint No. 96/1989 which has been referred to the police for investigation and report. ( 4 ) ADDED to this, the learned Government Pleader has produced the records of the case wherein it disclosed that the petitioner has presented a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Mangalore, in private complaint No. 96/1989 which has been referred to the police for investigation and report. ( 5 ) THAT is the proper remedy prescribed by law. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution need not interfere with the normal process of law merely because the party appropriate under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary jurisdiction and there is restraint practised by Courts in this country not to unnecessarily interfere with the administration unless it is demonstrable that the administrative machinery has acted mala fide. Levelling vague charges against the individual will not assist this Court in arriving at the truth. Even if this Court were to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, this Court may only direct the Magistrate having jurisdiction to investigate and submit a report. If it is already being done, it is unnecessary to entertain the petition and merely ask him to do what he has already done. This petition is misconceived and it is rejected. . --- *** --- .