ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2. This writ petition is filed alleging that even though cognizable crime reported by the petitioner was registered as crime No. 288 of 2020 under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act, 1989"), but there is delay in conducting investigation. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the Act, 1989 requires completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet within sixty days. But, so far, investigation is not taken-up. 4. Having noticed that the atrocities against SCs and STs are increasing day by day and the provisions in Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code are found to be inadequate and to protect the SCs and STs from atrocities committed against them in various forms, the Act 33 of 1989 was made to check and deter crimes against SCs and STs. On review of functioning of the Act by Act 1 of 2016, the Act 33 of 1989 was further amended. 5. Section 4 of the Act, after its amendment by Act 1 of 2016 prescribes procedure required to be followed by a public servant on receiving information about committing offence under the Act 33 of 1989 and the timeline for completing the investigation whenever a crime is reported alleging violation of the provisions of the Act. It mandates to complete the investigation and filing of charge sheet in the Special Court within a period of 60 days from the date of registration of the crime. If there is delay in the investigation and filing of charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has to satisfy the Special Court the reasons for delay in investigation. According to sub-section (3) of Section 4, the Special Court can take cognizance on dereliction of duty and can give directions to initiate penal proceedings against public servant. According to sub-section (1) of Section 4, if there is wilful neglect of duties required to be performed by the investigating officer under the Act and the Rules made there under, he is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months. Section 14 of the Act 1989 vests power in the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences reported under the Act. 6. Section 14 of the Act 1989 vests power in the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences reported under the Act. 6. In the case on hand, petitioner alleges that not completing the investigation in crime reported against a Schedule Caste person is illegal and violates the provisions of Act 33 of 1989. 7. As noticed above, the Special Court is vested with wide powers under the Act 33 of 1989 read with provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with grievances. It has power to take cognizance of the crime reported under the Act 33 of 1989, examine the aspect of delay in completing the investigation and filing of charge sheet and whether such delay would amount to deliberate and willful neglect of duties by the public servant. Further, if it is not satisfied with the conduct of public servant, it can order prosecution and to punish him. When matter is brought before the Special Court, the Special Court shall have all material facts in issue at its command to assess and shall be competent to go into all aspects and to take appropriate decision. 8. It can not be said that the remedy provided under the Act is not an efficacious remedy. Thus, petitioner ought to have availed the remedy provided under the Act on the grievance ventilated in the writ petition. When petitioner has statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism to redress his grievance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9. Thus, leaving it open to petitioner to work out his remedy, as available in law against non-completion of investigation in a crime registered under the Act 33 of 1989, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.