High Court · 2025

3. Smt. G. Kuma r, Qhaman, Swaroopa Rani, -Dlo. Late. Kataram Srinivas Rao, tlV/cl G. Rajesh aged about 00yearq H.No.15-4-204, Osmanshihi, Gowligjuda Hyderabafl AND

1. The State of Telan Hyderabad. gana, Rep by secretary, Home Department, Secretariate, .,.PETITIONERS 2 3 4 The Commisgioner 9f police, Cyberabad Connmissionerate Cyberabad, Hyderabad T[e Deputy Commissjoner of.Police, Rajendranagar Zonne, Cyberabad Commissionerate. Qyberabad, Hydera[a{ The lns.pector of pOlice, Narsingi, Cybgrabad Commissioneratq Cyberabad, Hyderabad

5. M/s. Hallmark Housing lnfra. Represented bv its Manaoinq partner Allu. Alkapoor Srinivas Reddy S/o A, Veera Reddy, 0/o. piot No 23 -HlG_il, TpwnShip. Nekmpur Viilage, Gandip'el ManOdl, RB Disrrict

6. Alllu Srinivas Reddy, S/o. A Veera Reddv, Aqed about 52 vears. Occ Managing Partner of M/s_ Hallmark Housing t-nfra R/o Villa 'No,2, Near Villa Greens, Gandipet, K.V. Ranga R;ddy District Urban Villas, Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanceg stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ oi Mandamus declaring the inactions of the Respondents authoriiies in proiecting the petitioners, right to enjoyment of their personal property and personal freedom from the ...RESPONDENTS l highhanded acts of the Respondents no. 5 and 6, despite the subsisting lnjunction order passed by the Honble Xl Addl. Chief Judge, city Civit court, Hyderabad passed in Ar 0.P 7 of 2025 as illegal, unjust and aaainst the prinoiples of natural justice and violation artjcle 14,1 5 and 19 of constitution of lndia , further direct the Respondent no.1 to 4 to initiate immediate actions against the Reqpondents no. 5 and 6 and their bouncers from interfering with free movemenu ingrgsg and egress of the Petitioners to the apartment complex Hallmark Erxpyrean arld en.ioymJnt of the.58 Residentiat pnits and i4 commercial unils in gaid cqmplex as righifL{ ownerq of the same, and consequently direct the Respondei.its 1 to 4 io proviie piotection to the Petitigners_for peaceful enjoyment qf their flalg/units in ihg apeirtmelt complex Hallmark Empyrean by providing engrie and e A NO: oF2 25 _-P,etit!9! under Section 1 51 qPC praying that in the circumstances $tated in . the affidavit filgd rn support of the writ peiitiqn, the High Cpurt rnay be pleased direct the EEsponoent qo 1 to 4 to initiate immediate actions agailrst thg Respon$ents no 5 and 6 and bouncers and henciimen engaged Oy them at apartment ggpplex Haltmark Empyrgan from interfering with flee moyemeriU ingresg and egress of the Petitioners to the apartment complex Hallhiark Empyrgan and enjoyment of the 58 Residential units and 14 commercra[ units in sard gomplex as rightful ouiners of said_flats, an( canseqggntly direct the Respogflgnts i to 4 to provide protection to the Petitignerg for peacqful enjoyment of their flAts/units in the apartmght Cqmplex Hallmar,k Empyrean Counsp! for lhe Petition-qris: SRl. q SHAsl.llDHAB REQpy Qoqnsel for thp RgqponCgnt Nos.1 tq 4: GP FOR HOMe Coqnsel foq tl19 Rgppondent Nos.5&6: -* The Court m!$e thg follgwingl ORQER I THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.11106 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,' learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearlng for the parties, the writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage'

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Couft is of the view I that notice to unomcial respondent Nos.5 and 6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the respondents-authorities are not protecting petitioners'right of enjoyment of their properties and also personal freedom at the hands of the unofficial respondents, in spite of subsisting injunction order in Ar.O.P.No.7 of 2025, with a consequential direction to respondents to provide protection to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that one K.Srinivas Rao had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation/ complaint and based on the aforesaid complaint, the respondents- authorities have registered a case, vide Crime No.559 of 2025 \- ) dt.20.03.2025, wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are arrayed as accused along with others and that the respondents are investigating into the said crime registered.

5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the petitioners claim of having obtained an order of injunction, has to avail further orders including providing police protection being a civil dispute and respondents cannot involve themselves in such disputes as the dispute is subjudice.

6. Having regard to the submissions made as above, since the respondents-authorities claim to have registered a case, vide Crime No.559 of 2025 dt.20.03.2025, this Court is of the view that the respondents-a uthorities are to be directed to conduct investigation into the aforesaid crime and take further action strictly in accordance with law. Insofar as the claim of petitioners' not providing protection to their property and freedom is concerned, as the petitioners claim of having obtained an order of injunction against the respondents herein, this Court is of the view that if the said order is being violated, the petitioners have to take further steps in the pending proceedings and for the said purpose cannot seek to set in motion the criminal procedure by involving respondents -police authorities.

7. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. I To, l

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad '1. The secretary, Home Department' Secretariate' Hyderabad' 2. The Commissioner of police' Cyberabad Connmissionerate Cyberabad' 3. The Deputy Commisstoner of Police Ra'iendranagar Zonne' Cyberabad " i""".rli.i,i"erate Cyberabad' Hyderabad 4. The lnspector of police' Narsingi' Cyberabad Commissionerate Cyberabad' Hyderabad

5. One CQ to gRl G SHASHIDHAR REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CQE to GP FOR HOME 'fligh Court for the State of Telangana lOUTl 7 KKS BS Two CD CoPies N-- ) I I HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 I ORDER WP.No.11106 of 2025 ,( /q ,!)\r^ $ \v, t 20 ll\N E[ t DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( i$) U,/ ) f\\ I I i.