High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ lVlandamus, questioning the inaction of the respondent no.6 in not considering the Petitioner's representations dt.28-12-2024 as illegal, unlawful and against the Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondent no.6 to consider the representations of the petitioner and provide the police protection against the respondent no.7,B & t herein. ,-12 'r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in - rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct . ..,ndent no.6 to consider the petitioner's representation dL.2811212A24 and ,-, ovide the police protection against the respondent no.7,8 and t herein, pending outcome of the main writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between:

1. Thalluri Ramesh, Sio. Subbaiah, aged about 55 Years, Occ. Milk Vendor, R/o. Gate Karepalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam Districl, Telangana.

2. Thalluri Naresh, S/o. Ramesh, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Government Employee, Ro. Gate Karepalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana ...PET|IoNERS/RESPoNDENT Nos.8 & 9 AND '1 . Hanumakonda Ramesh, S/o. Late Pakeeraiah, aged about 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Gate Karepalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana state ...RES'.NDENT No.1/pETrroNER Hyderabad, T elangana State-500004. 2 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Home Department, Secretariat buildings, 3. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Khammam commissionerate, 64MM plus 5GM, Venkatgiri Rd, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam, Telangana-50700'1 .

5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Khammam, Telangana. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Khammam Rural, Telangana. 7. Station House Officer, Karepalli Police Station, Khammam Commissionerate, Telangana State. B. Thotakuri Pitchaiah, S/o. aged about 65 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Gate Karepalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTIS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction passed in LA. No. 1 ot 2025 in W.P. No. 1681 ot 2025 Dt. 12/02/2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADHAVARAPU SIDDHARTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l TO 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: SRI c.R^AVl CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER ,'r THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1681 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Sri G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.B and 9 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he filed a suit against the unof{icial respondents herein, uide O .5. No.574 of 2O2O and having obtained an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession, uide order in I.A. No.601 of 2O2O, on the unofficial respondents herein in interfering with his possession over the suit 1and, the petitioner had approached the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and fi1ed petition seeking police protection uide i.A. No.574 of 2O2O.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the Special Assistant agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam having granted an order providing police protection, the respondent authorities are not providing police protection in respect of the suit scheduie property, inspite of the petitioner approaching the respondent authorities and I 2 submitting representation dated 10.01.2025 which action of the respondents it is contended is highly illegal and arbitrary. 4. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 would submit that the petitioner while approaching the re spondent authority by submitting representation did not bring to the notice of the said authority for violating the injunction order in I.A. No.60l of 2O2O. 5. Learned Government pleader would further submit tiat if only there is any violation of the injunction order by the unofficial respondents herein, the authorities can take steps for extending the police protection in terms of the order in I.A. No.474 of 2O2l and since, the petitioner only approached the respondent authorities by submitting representation seeking police protection without mentioning any violation or breach whereby the respondents herein sought to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the land, the respondent authorities cannot be said as not complying with the order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate for extending the police protection, as the respondent authorities cannot provide continuous police protection to the petitioner's subject land. 6. Learned Government pleader further submits that if only the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities /, J complaining of any specilic occurrence or incident, the respondent authorities would take action as per the order in I.A. No.474 of 2O2l by providing police protection. 7 . karned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofhcial respondents on the other hand would submit that the petitioner under the guise of the orders obtained by him in the suit, urde O.S. No.574 of 2O2O is, in fact, encroaching into the petitioner,s land claiming the said land to be in a particular survey number and is trying to dispossess the petitioner, and that the unofficial respondent has already taken steps for vacating the order by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and on account of the vacancy in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, his petition is not being disposed of. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unoflicial respondents further submits that the petitioner by obtaining interim order of police protection is seeking to dispossess the petitioner which if permitted would result in the suit being adjudicated in favour of the petitioner without considering the defence of the unofficial respondent.

9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 10. Though the petitioner has been granted an order of police protection in I.A. No.474 of 2O2L, it is not shown to this Court I I on the rospondent violating the aforesaid order, the petitioner taking action by availing further remedies against the respondents herein by filing necessary application before the concernecl Magistrate to initiate necessary, actior-r against the respondents herein.

11. Purther, it is also to be noted that the petitioner herein while approaching the respondent authorities by submitting representation dated 28.12.2024 seeking police protection did not mentiorl any violation by the respondents giving rise to cause of action for the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities seeking police protection in terms of the order in I.A. No.474 of 2027. It is to be noted that an order granting police protection would not mean the respondent authorities would be required to provide a continuous vigil to the petitioner,s property. On the other hand if there is any violation of the interim order, the petitioner while approaching the respondent authorit5z ought to have brought to the notice of the authorities of any specific incident or occurrence for the authorities to provide police protection. The petitioner without initiating any action in rclation to violation of injunction order cannot by I approaching the respondent authorities seek for providing police protection. \ 5

12. Since, a perusal of the complaint dated 28.12.2024 submitted to the respondent does not indicate violation of the injunction order by the unofficial respondents herein, the petitioner cannot approach the respondent authorities seeking police protecl-ion and approach this Court claiming the respondent authorities are not providing police protection inspite of an order having been passed by the concerned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, for this Court to take note of the same.

13. As noted hereinabove, since, a situation for the respondent authorities to provide police protection had not arisen, whereby the unofficial respondents herein having acted in contravention of the order in I.A. No.601 of 2O2O, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to comply with the order in I.A. No.474 of 2O2l when the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities by bringing to the notice of the said authorities of a specific incident of violation of injunction order and not otherwise.

14. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shal I SlaAd_elsssd-__ _ /) SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I J To

1. The Home Department, Secretariat buildings, State of Telangana -500004. t SECTION OFFICER bad, Telangana State, I t \ 2 2 4 5 o 7 B '10 PSK. LS ' The Director General of Police, State of Telangana. The Commissioner of Police, Khammam Commissionerate, 64MM plus SGM' Venkatqiri Rd, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam, Telangana-507001 . The De-outv Commissioneiof Police, Khammam, Telangana. the Asiistint Commissioner of Police, Khammam Rural, Telangana. Station House Officer, Karepalli Police Station, Khammam Commissionerate, Telanoana State. ONE iC tO SRI MADHAVARAPU SIDDHARTHA RAO, AdVOCAIE [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Ohe CC to SRI G.RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies l I I HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 I i ORDER !1; ,J WP.No.1681 of 2025 ;1 ...1 r-j. (. { s s * o ( ( DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @