JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - This application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner complaining about the inaction of the Opposite Parties-Police Authorities on his complaints and praying to direct the Opposite Parties to take appropriate action on his complaints. 2. The petitioner claims to be a Lecturer in Mathematics in a private college and is staying alone in his village. 3. It is alleged in the writ petition that Annexures-1 to 6, 9 and 10 are written F.I.Rs. lodged by the petitioner before the IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S. complaining about commission of offences by some persons of his village, particularly, one Binua Pradhan and Bipina Pradhan of the same village. As per his report under Annexure-1 dated 30.1.2013, at about 1.40 A.M. on the same day some persons knocked loudly on the window of the petitioner’s bed-room and when the petitioner woke up and tried to come out, he found that the door was locked from the outside. It is also alleged that the miscreants threw stones and brickbats to his door also, and, that when he went out through the backside door, the miscreants had gone away. In the report under Annexure-2 it is alleged that on 12.10.2013 there was storm and rain and that at about 3.30 P.M. the petitioner’s neighbour Binua Pradhan asked him to uproot the bamboo allegedly buried on the land of the petitioner and when the petitioner refused to uproot the same, Binua Pradhan and his younger brother Bipina Pradhan abused him in indecent language. He suspects that some other persons were at the back of the same incident. In the report under Annexure-3 the petitioner alleged that on 26.10.2013 at about 9.45 P.M. one Tukuna Samantaray, a co-villager of petitioner, entered into the tuition room of the petitioner and took away CFL bulb while the petitioner was offering prayer. Therefore, immediately he could not resist. On the next day at about 2.00 P.M. he requested Tukuna to return the bulb, but the latter gave him push and pull and abused him in vulgar language and also threatened to finish him. It is further alleged that in the past Tukuna Samantaray also created trouble with him. Therefore, immediately he could not resist. On the next day at about 2.00 P.M. he requested Tukuna to return the bulb, but the latter gave him push and pull and abused him in vulgar language and also threatened to finish him. It is further alleged that in the past Tukuna Samantaray also created trouble with him. In the reports under Annexure-4 dated 19.11.2013 and Annexure-5 dated 16.12.2013 the petitioner briefly recounts the incidents of 30.01.2013, 12.10.2013, 27.10.2013 and reminds the IIC of Jagatsinghpur P.S. about lodging reports in respect of all those incidents. In his report under Annexure-6 dated 12.01.2014 the petitioner alleged that at about 3.30 P.M. on the same day Binua Pradhan and Tukuna Samantaray of his village combinedly threatened him asking why he complained against them in the police station and also abused him in filthy language. Binua Pradhan also challenged the petitioner saying that in his absence the petitioner entered into his house and molested his wife. 3. It is alleged in the writ petition that in spite of submitting so many complaints (Annexure-1 to 6) the IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S. did not take any action and, on the contrary, threatened the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur on 13.02.2014 and 21.03.2014 (Annexure-7 and 8). It was submitted by the petitioner that though the Superintendent of Police assured him of appropriate legal action but nothing was done. 4. The petitioner again submitted a complaint to the IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S. on 19.04.2014 stating that though the IIC warned the accused persons on 12.01.2014 not to create any problem for the petitioner, on the morning of 19.04.2014 Binua Pradhan and Bipina Pradhan heaped pulses plants on the road in front of the gate of the petitioner in spite of protest of the petitioner and also abused and threatened him in filthy language. The petitioner again lodged a report under Annexure-10 dated 02.05.2014 before the IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S. that Binua Pradhan had kept his Tata AC vehicle covering his pulses and the petitioner brought a tractor load of sand and the driver of the tractor asked Binua Pradhan to remove his vehicle but he refused. When the petitioner protested by saying as to where and how the sand would be un-loaded, Binua threatened him. 5. When the petitioner protested by saying as to where and how the sand would be un-loaded, Binua threatened him. 5. It is alleged by the petitioner that since the IIC and the Superintendent of Police did not take appropriate action on his aforesaid complaints, the petitioner represented to the Director General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack on 12.05.2014, 23.06.2014, 28.07.2014, 24.11.2014 and 22.06.2015 as per Annexure-12 to 15 and 18, and, that some of his representations were referred by the Director General of Police to the Inspector General of Police, Central Region for immediate action. Therefore, the petitioner personally met the Inspector General of Police who gave assurance for taking action on his reports, but to no effect. 6. It is also alleged that the petitioner submitted two complaints to the S.D.P.O., Jagatsinghpur under Annexure-16 dated 31.01.2015 and Annexure-17 dated 08.02.2015 alleging that on 30.01.2015 a marriage ceremony was going on in the village of the petitioner and while he was asleep in the night three young persons entered into his house, probably with an intention to commit theft and when the petitioner tried to catch/hold them, they escaped by jumping the boundary. It is alleged in Annexure-17 that at about 10.00 A.M. on 08.02.2015 the petitioner asked the wife of Binua Pradhan about his share of yields of the landed property, but Binua’s younger brother Bipina abused him. The petitioner has therefore prayed for directing the police authority to take appropriate action on his complaints. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the S.D.P.O., Jagatsinghpur, wherein it is stated that the petitioner filed complaint at the P.S. on 19.11.2013 complaining about cutting of his banana plants and damage of his electric bulb by the miscreants. Again on 02.05.2014 he lodged a report about obstruction caused by Binua Pradhan for un-loading the sand of the petitioner from a hired tractor. Another complaint was made by the petitioner on 12.01.2014 alleging about Binua Pradhan picking up quarrel with him. It is stated that these reports were entered in the station diary vide station diary entry Nos.485 dated 19.11.2013, SDE No.39 dated 02.05.2014 and SDE No.306 dated 12.01.2014 as per Annexure-A series. It is stated that the complaints as aforesaid were enquired by the ASI of Police, Mr. P.C. Mohanty of Jagatsinghpur P.S. and he found that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and fabricated. It is stated that the complaints as aforesaid were enquired by the ASI of Police, Mr. P.C. Mohanty of Jagatsinghpur P.S. and he found that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and fabricated. The enquiry report of the A.S.I. has been filed as Annexure-‘B’. The enquiry report reveals that the petitioner is a person of quarrelsome character and he picks up quarrels with his neighbours over trivial issues. The enquiry report further reveals that previously also other police officers had enquired into the complaints of the petitioner. It is also stated that because of his quarrelsome character, the relationship of the petitioner is not good with his co-villagers. With regard to the obstruction caused by Binua Pradhan to un-load the sand tractor, it is stated in the inquiry report of the ASI that the petitioner insisted to un-loaded the tractor on a land which does not belong to him. Finally it is stated in the inquiry report that the allegations made by the petitioner in his repeated complaints are false and baseless. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s petition dated 02.05.2014 submitted to the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the S.D.P.O., who himself conducted enquiry and submitted his report dated 01.07.2015 as per Annexure-‘C’. It is stated in Annexure-C that the petitioner is a quarrelsome person and his co-villagers are very much unhappy with his activities and that the petitioner is habitually submitting vague petitions against his co-villagers over silly matters in order to harass them. It is further stated that the petitioner is an over-aged bachelor and seems to be of abnormal mind and he has a mania for filing petitions on regular intervals without any reason. The counter affidavit further states that the co-villagers of the petitioner themselves submitted a report on 12.01.2014 against the petitioner regarding his quarrelsome attitude and causing of unnecessary harassment to them. The petition has been annexed as Annexure-‘D’. Finally it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not lodged any report on 31.01.2013, 21.10.2013, 28.10.2013 and 19.04.2014 at the police station. 8. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the form an additional affidavit. The petition has been annexed as Annexure-‘D’. Finally it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not lodged any report on 31.01.2013, 21.10.2013, 28.10.2013 and 19.04.2014 at the police station. 8. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the form an additional affidavit. In this affidavit the petitioner only repeats his averments in the writ petition about lodging of FIRs at the police station on different dated and goes on to interpret the different words used by the S.D.P.O. in the counter affidavit as well as words used in the enquiry reports of the ASI and the S.D.P.O. 9. The report lodged by a large body of villagers against the petitioner and the enquiry reports of the police officers go to show that the petitioner picks up quarrels with his neighbours and co-villagers on very petty and silly matters. His allegations that he lodged reports which are neither considered nor any action taken thereon by the police authorities are groundless in view of the two inquiry reports vide Annexures-‘B’ and ‘C’. In the aforesaid view of the matter no direction to the police authorities is warranted in this case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.