Habeeb Satefr junaidi v. 1. The Government of Telangana

counsel for the Respondents No.I to 3: Mr. D.PRADEEP, AGp FoR HOME counsel for the Respondents No.4: Mr. RApARTHI VENKATESH, sc FoR GHMC Counsel for the Respondents No.5 & 6: - - - The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3883 OF 20L8 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- ^ny "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particulady one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 and 4'in not taking action on the complaint dt. 08.01.2018 and 05.02.201,8 by the petitioner herein as illegaf arbitary and unconstitutional and conscquendy direction may be glven to the respondents to take a stern action against the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and their associates for broke open the lock, and raising illegal construction on thc petitioners property despite of having Iniunction order vidc I.A.No.545/2017 in O.S. No. 282012017 dt.30.11.201,7 passcd by .the Hon'ble VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad on the subject land in favour of the Petitioner hercin and be pleased to pass..."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Heard Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's grievance is that the Police authorities 2 failed to take action on his representations dated 08.01 .2018 and

05.02.2018, and did not initiate proceedings against the unofficial respondents despite the orders passed by the Civil Court in I.A. No. 545 c'f 2C117 in O.S. No. 2820 of 201,7 on the file of the learned VIII Junior Civrl Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, it is submitted that there was no direction issued by the competent Civil Court to extend police protection in respect of the disputed properry, ;rnd in the absence of such an order, the Police authorities were unable to act upon the petitioner's representations. Hence, the learned .,\ssistant Governmenr Pleader prayed for passing appropriate orders.

5. I har.e perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner's contention is that, despite the subsistenc,: of an iniunction order granted by the Civil Court, the Police failed to take any action or sreps against the unofficial respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The issue as to whether a parfy can directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Aracle 226 of the CorLstitution of India, seeking police aid for enforcement of '--- / / w---.-// '/: J an interim or final ofder passed by ^ civil court, without fust approaching the executing court, is no longer res integra' l. A Division Bench of this Court Ln Kabbakula Padma u' Srun of Telangana l(2023) 1 ALT 7651 cateeorically held that a paffy seeking police zid for implementation of z decree or interim order must first approach the executing court, which alone is vested with the statutory authoriry under the code of civil Procedure, 1908, to issue appropriate directions. Similarly, in Mudraboina Odhelu dv Others u. State of Telangana dy Others MANU/TL/0359/20231, and by , Co-ordinate Bench of this Court tn IY.P. I\o' 8698 of 2025' dated 1,3.06.2025, it was held that a writ petition seeking enforcement of a civil couft's order of decree, without demonsrating that the petitioner has taken steps before the executing couft by filing arL appropriate execution petition or seeking police protection therein, is not maintainable under Article ! t "r i 226 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have consistently emphasized that writ lurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for the execution mechanism contemplated under the cPC. g. In the present case,. it is evident from the record that the petitionel: has not approached the Civil Court for implementation of the interim injunction order through appropriate proceedings or by applying for police protection before the trial court. Therefore, in view <>f the setded legal position and in the absence of any cxception.al or extraordinary circumstances warranting the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Dresent writ petition is not maintainable. .l.I q. Ho'vever, the rights of the petitioner are reserved to avail appropriate remedies under law before the concerned Court, if the cause of action still survives to. S7it.r this direction, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Misr:ellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 ONE CI] tO SRI MOHD ABDUL QAVI ABBASI, AdVOCAIE [OPUC] One Ctl to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC. [OPUC] Two c(ls to GP FoR HOME, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies PMK PVL 0r HIGH CCIURT DATED:3011012025 ORDER WP.No.3833 of 2018 .i:: \'nc ot) 2 B [[B 2{121i r)). * s * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS (/q.'4 * 6,(Y u, h