Shailesh Gupta v. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- A. Declaring as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and a gross violation of procedure established by law, the inaction of Respondents, more particularly Respondent No.4, in not providing police protection to the Petitioner pursuant to orders issued in E.P. No. 12 of 2OO3 by the Honble I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, and to consequently direct them to strictly follow the procedure established by law in furtherance of any order of police aid and assistance or police protection oassed in E.P. No. 12 of 2OO3 by the Hor bll,r I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil CoLrrt at Hyderabad, and. B. Further, der:larinr; as illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutional and r, g.oss violation of procedure establir;hed by law, the inaction of Respondents, rrore particularly Respondent No. 1., rr not initiating any action against .the offencl) committed by Respondent Nr:. li ir presence of Respondent No. 4, on 2O-)3 2025, whereby Respondent No. 5 resisted and obstructed the Court Bailifl a rpointed under warrant dated 17-C3-2025, issued by the Honble I Senior Civll J:dge, City Civil Court, Hyderabacl, in taking possession of property bearinJ l.No. 3-3-844, Qutbiguda, Kachill.lCa. Hyderabad, and performing his off c al duties, and to consequently Cire,ct him to initiate action in accordance wilh law against Respondent No. 5 and C. Further, direc: lire Respondent No. 4 to provide police pr,ttection to the Petitioner with rescect to the portion of the property which is deli,.,ered to him by City Civil Court Biriliff on 30-09-2023 in property bearinrt l.No.3-3-844, Qutbiguda, (s6rhiguca, Hyderabad, in pursuance of execution ol w,rrrant issued in E.P. No. 12 of 2)03 by the Honble I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, and, f,. /\nd further it is prayed that this Honble Court. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition rnder {}ection 151 CPC praying that in the circunstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Cou( m ay be pleased pleased to dire<;t the Respondents, more particularly Respondent t,lo. 4 to provide police protection tc, the Petitioner with respect to the portion of the property which is delivered to hinr hrv City Civil Court Bailiff on 30-09-2023 in p-operty bearing H.No. 3-3-844, Qutbiguda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, in pursuanr:e,tf execution of warrant issued in E F No. 12 oI 2003 by the Honble I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at H,Tderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SANKALP PISSAY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondents No.5 : - The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMA}i, WRIT PETITION No.L2135 of2025 OR.DER: Heard l:lrned Counsel for the petitioner L:arned Governme'nt l'1,:rcler for Home appearing for olhcial re rp(,ndent Nos. 1 to .: , arrrl u'ith the consenl of learned counsel appearing for the ros1),r1r:i\/e parties, the writ petition is lak:tr rrp for hearing and r lis lrosal al. admission stage.

2. I-I:rrr nq ;ccirrd Lo thc manncr of disposal o1 :hr. Writ Petition :rrd ri: n:rturc of 1is involved, this Court is of ,.h: view that notir--,' t,r r- nofficial rcspondent No.5 is not nccc,;se r-1, for adjudicatior: ri thc present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn ol Lr nncccssary details, the case o[ th,. pe i i,r;rer, in brief, is th: I thr: 4th respondent is not prc,vidtni polir:e prolection pL r:uant to the ordcr passed in UI).No.'l .2, 2(103 in OS.No.17t4.'2(l().4 on the llle of the I Scnror civil Jrrriqe , CiLy Civil t.'ou r at l1,l,.rabad.

4. It is 1l-r I'tr-thcr case of the petitioner that rvhen t te Court Bailiff wa,s s;r':rl<ing to execuLe the $,arranr, ct. 1i-.r)3.2025, issuecl in thc aftresaid EP on 20.03.2025, as he was rcsisted from execlr[ir;g thr: same, hc ]rad approachcd thc resp,rnrlents- authoritic:. arLrl sought {br takrng action againsr Lhc 5fi 2 -t/ ,1 2 respondent, but no action has been taken thereon by thc respondents, which it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary, dereliction of duties and disrespect to the orders of the Court.

5. Per contra, lcarned Govcrnmcnt plcader appearing on behalf of respondents, by drawing attention of the Court to the report of the Bailiff, dt.2O.O3.2O2S, would subrnit that the respondents-authorities havc provided police protection for execution of warrant, dt.l7.O3.2O2S, on 20.O3.2O25, and when the aforesaid warrant was sought to be executcd, the unofficial respondent No.5 had resisted Lhc execution of the said warrant, and for the said reason, the CourL llailiff coul<l not execute the warrant and the same is endorsed by thc Bailiff on the warrant, and mentioned in the report submitted to the Hon'ble Court.

6. Learned Government Pleader lurther submits that the aforesaid report of the Bailiff would clearly indicate the respondents-au thorities providing necessary police aid for execution of thc Warrant:, dt.l'/.O3.2025, on 20.O3.2O25, and as such the claim of the petitioncr of the respondents not providing police protection to the Court Bailiff on 20.O3.2O25 is factually an incorrect statement. 7 . l,earned Governmcnt Pleader further submits that on the Court Bailiff failing to execute the warrant on 2O.O3.2O25 due to :t. --r'rt 3 the rcsistran< t o1' the unofficial respondent, the I Itc,fltcial responden - har,r approached this Court by filing CFII (Slt).No. 12470 of :.102r, on the following day and obtained an or ier of stay of all fi.Lr"lurr proceedings in EP.No.12/2OO3 unti ftrrther orders, vide or:ler, d,t.2l .O3.2025, whercin the petitiorrtr'lLerein has also bc'en rur a\red as respondent.

8. I hat e trrl:e n note of the respective submissions rn,rdr:.

9. Thot gh t rc petitioner claims of the 4th respoll(l.r t not taking anv ac:'cn in providing police protection pursuarrl. o the orcler in trl,.Nr) :2i 2003, the rcport of the tsailiff, dt.2O.().3.2025, as hlcd b,:fc,r'c the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil (lnrrt at Hyderabad, sh-rv's thc respond en ts-auth orities providir.e ,tolice protectior-r loi :xccution of the Warrant, dt. 17.03.2r)2,;, on

20.o3.202i'..

10. Furtlrcr zr reacling of the rcporL would also shoq rhat it is \ t on accounl ol rl-r' rcsistance of the unofficial respondert h:rein, the Bailiff (:ould not execute the rvarrant on 20.O3.2025 ar d the said warrarrt lLrr; bccn returned to the Court.

11. Sinct'. tlrr unolficial respondent herein hacl approirched this Court or-r -h:' follorving day i.e., on 21.03.2025 by filing a CRP(SR).No. 1'.,,.J7O of 2025, and this Court having gran_ec stay I I I 4 of all further proceedings in Ep.No.12/2003, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that the 4tr, respondent had failed to provide police protecLion for cxecu[ion of the warrant, dt.17.O3.2025 issued in trp.No. I 2/2OO3.

12. However, taking note of the fact that this Court in CRp having granted stay of all lurther proceedings in EP.No.12/2003, until further orders, the petitioner instead of taking steps to get the aforesaid order vacated, has hled the presenL Writ Pctition alleging inaction on the part of the rcspondents auLhorities, which in the considered view of this Court cannot be allowcd.

13. Accordingiy, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as Lo costs.

74. Consequently, miscellaneous pctitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J One CC to SRI SANKALP PISSAY, Advocate. [Op Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. ast< LS 61112_ l I i / I HIGH COURT DATED:2310412025 ORDER WP.No.12135 of 2025 a; '\ rrE StA ,6 u^ l- ( 21 ui,t :1ljzs o * oF. * ,T 4T:trEi =za=>' DISMISSINGi THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b ?..0'