JUDGMENT :- The petitioner claims to be an Advocate and Founder Secretary of Indian Temple Development Authority Union and Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Sai Social Service Society, Vizianagaram. He states that annual contributions collected from 13 religious and charitable institutions in the District to the tune of about Rs.4,21,260/- was not remitted to the Government Account and that the same was misappropriated. It is stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, 7th respondent herein is squarely responsible for such misappropriation and lack of supervision. By making reference to certain paragraphs in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 03.02.2004, the petitioner contends that the 7th respondent is liable to be proceeded against. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and accordingly, to direct respondents 1 to 6 to initiate departmental proceedings against the 7th respondent in terms of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know that substantial amounts collected from the religious institutions in the District towards the audit fee have not been remitted and though there is statutory obligation and official responsibility on the 7th respondent to ensure proper remittance, she failed in this regard. He made a reference to the steps taken by the petitioner from time to time, in this regard. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments placed before this Court, the record relating to remittances of the said amount. He submits that an official functioning as Inspector in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram was found responsible for not remitting the amounts and it was after the present incumbent in the office of the 7th respondent took charge that necessary steps were taken. He further submits that not only the amount was remitted but also the employee responsible, was reverted. The petitioner had mentioned the particulars of the amounts collected from the Temples towards audit fee. They come to around Rs.4,21,000/-. As recently as on 01.08.2008, the petitioner got published a notice in newspaper alleging that a sum of Rs.4,21,260/-was misappropriated by the 7th respondent, by name Bramaramba. He has even published the photograph of the officer. There is some amount of increase in the public participation in the affairs, which hitherto used to be purely state activity. As recently as on 01.08.2008, the petitioner got published a notice in newspaper alleging that a sum of Rs.4,21,260/-was misappropriated by the 7th respondent, by name Bramaramba. He has even published the photograph of the officer. There is some amount of increase in the public participation in the affairs, which hitherto used to be purely state activity. As long as such participation brings about the transparency, one cannot have any grievance about it. However, if the facility is utilized to take personal vengeance, a second look needs to be given to the same. In case, the petitioner came to know that the fee collected from the Temples was not remitted to the proper account, he could certainly have brought it to the notice of the concerned authority. The record placed by the learned Government Pleader discloses that soon after the present incumbent in the office of the Assistant Commissioner took charge, she initiated steps against the Inspector of Endowments Department and the same has led to remittance of a sum of Rs.2,20,067/- on 16.04.2007 and Rs.1,68,063/-on 07.05.2007. It is stated that the Endowments Inspector has since been reverted to a lower post, after conducting departmental enquiry. Had the petitioner taken the trouble of verifying these facts, there would not have been any necessity for him to publish a news item by incurring huge expenditure, much less, to publish the photograph of the officer. The tone and tenor of the notification published on 01.08.2008 is totally objectionable and does not befit that of an Advocate. The petitioner did not make any endeavour to know the various steps that were taken in the office of the 7th respondent. His object appears to be only to tarnish the image of the 7th respondent and harass her. The petitioner had exposed himself for being sued for defamation, apart from being prosecuted for such baseless activities. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, by imposing costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) payable to Sri Srirama Mandiram, Vizianagaram, within four (4) weeks from today.