The High Court · 2025

Counsel for ther pet tioner: SRI J.VENKATRAM NARSTMHA REDI)y counset for the, Respondent Nos.1,4,6 a g, nCp'ibn scHooL EiDUCATIoN !::l:"! for the Respondent No.2: acp ron ilve-rvue uounsel for th,-, ft6yspe6dent No.3: AGp FOR HOME uounset ror the Respondent No.S: SRI RAPARTHY VENKATESH SC FOR Counset for the Resoondent No.10: Counsel for the Rescondent Nos.7 & g: _ ^#ff- HIGHER EDUcATtoN The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAIGHMAN WRIT PETITION No.15465 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Sri J. Venkatram Narsimha Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education for respondent Nos.1,4,6 and 9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.3, Sri Raparthy Venkatesh, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent No.1O. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is a society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is running a school namely Mufeed-Ul-Anam School situated at Yakathpura, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos.7 and 8, are neighbours of the said school and they have trespassed into the property of the school illegally. They have closed KL,J I I Nu.i )4,15 of2025 2 the scl:.ool . Therefore, the petitioner hzrs sut,mitted representzr:(rn dated 24.05.2025 to the SitatLon House Ofhcer, \lrrr:howk Police Station ancl J)eputy Commi-qsirrr.er of Police, South Zone, Corlrnis sic ner of Police, [Jl,derabad and also to responderr.l Ncs.tl,3,5,6 and 9 *,itlL a request to take action against resp rndent Nos.7 zrnd 3, Despite receiving and acknowleclgi eg the said re1:rest ntation, the concerned respondents hzrve not taken tin.,i a<-tion against respondent N,'rs.7 z nd 8 Aggriev::,1 ry the said in action of l.he af< ,resaid respon<len t: , petitioner frled the present wrir, pr:titic n.

3. Perusrr:l of the record would reveal t.h.at. earlier Dharmirvan-h Hindi Educational Institution al Tru,st had filed a ,Mri1 retition vide W.P.No.1481O of 2{i2 [ see king a direction (_ respondent Nos.2, 3 and others to take necess€-:\r s -eps against respondent Nos.7 :md l-t lrerein. The saicl ,.rrit petition was dismissed on 16.)8,2021. Feeling iagrtrieved and dissatisfied with the szricl ord,:r, the said 'Ih st preferred an intra-court appeal r-rn.rier :lause t I I I I K],,J W.P No.15465 of2025 1 15 of the l,etter Patent vide W.A.No.429 of 2021. A Dirrision Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to depute police personnel to the premises of the appellant and ensure that the locked premises are unlocked providing access to the appellant to the record of the institution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order was implemented and the said writ appeal is pending. Thus, now the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 10 have to consider the representation dated 30.05.2025 and take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8 to unlock the entrance gate of the school locked by respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent No.3 is also not taking any action against respondent Nos.7 and

4. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have locked the school premises on 24.05.2025 at 1 1.00A.M. Therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint with Station House Offrcer, Mirchowk Police KI,,J 'r .l \o. 5.65 ol2025 4 Statior: cttt 24.O5.2025 and also a cornpliint dated

24.O5.t2)t).; t.o the Deputy Commissioner oi Pr:li:e South Zorre erd lc respondent No.3 - Commissi':ner of Police. The pr,.-itiorer has sent complaint dated i!4Oi;.i025 to the St- a-ti o r House Officer, 14i."1r6v[ i'olir:t: Station through F,cst and it has filed only postal rr:ceip't. It has not hle rl prcof of service of the said complain': cn Station House r-)flir er. Mirchowk Police Station. The pr:titicner did not m:rkr' the Station House Officer, Mirchorvk Police StatiorL asi rarty to the present writ petition. 'lhorrgh the petitior-l,:r is claiming that it has lodged a t:ompla,rnt with the D:loLLty Commissioner of Police, SoutkL Z>ne on

24.05..1,11iI, it. has not made the Deputy Commiss oner of Police, llo'.-th Zone as pa-rty to the present vvrir- tr:etition. Howev:: :, t:e petitioner has fi1ed copy of the :ornplaint dated 24-)5,2025 submitted to respondenl No.3 Commisisi o ner of Police, Hyderabad.

5. It is rlso the specific contention of tht' pt titioner that iGl.as submitted representation to reslrondr:n . Nos. 1, ''; KL'J W.P.No 15465 of 2025 5 2,4 to 6,9 and 10 against respondent Nos'7 and 8 and they have not taken any action on the same.

6. Perusal of order dated 16.08.2021 in W.P. No.14810 of 2021 would reveal that respondent Nbs.7 and 8 are claiming that they are the lease-holders of Dharmavath Hindi Educational Institutional Trust, and they have entered into lease deed on 27.06.2014. On the strength of the said lease deed only, they are running the educational institutions of the petitioner. Considering the said aspects and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'lole Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v' S' Janakil, this Court dismissed the said writ petition' The said trust had preferred a writ appeal uideW.A. No'429 of 2O2l. A Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Police, to depute police personnel to the premises of the appellant and ensure that the premises is unlocked providing access to the appellant to the record of the institution. The Division Bench also considered '. lzozoy ro scc zzs KL,J 1;.I \o. 5.55 oa2O25 6 the sul:,;rrr s sions made by the said Trust thzrt it has to issue vzrrilrrs certilicates to the students. TtLr: seid writ appeal is; pe nding.

7. As; dis cussed above, according to the pet tioner, respon<1t:nt. Nos.7 and 8 locked the prenris,:s on

24.O5.21,2:i Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are privatr: 1:arties. If the ;:,r:tr i oner has any grievance against resp lndent Nos.7 irrtcl 8. it has to avail alternative r.errLedi,:s. It cannot 'suLr:nit representation to respondent Nos. ,2" 4 to 6, 9 elc 10 and to take action against :::spondent Nos.7 and t. If respondent Nos.7 ald 8 tr:,sp;es;st d into the properr.- of the petitioner and locked rhe scL oo1, it has to lrrlp;:r;,1 complaint with the concernecl pr:1ice and if the con,:r:rrrr:rl Police did not act upon the sitme , it eas to submit a representation to Higher A.ur hr rities. Thereafl.,:r. :.. has to file a complaint under Ser:t:ion - 2OO of Cr.P.(-). Instead of doing so, the perrtrorrer is contendirrg, that it has submitted represent€rti,)n respondt:nt l,los. 1,2, 4 to 6,9 and 10 with a request to l 7 KL,J w.P No 15465 of2025 take action against respondent Nos'6 and 7 and open the school. Respondent Nos'l, 2, 4 to 6,9 and 10 cannot take action against respondent Nos'7 and 8 and cannot interfere with inter se disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent Nos'7 and 8 are claiming right over the properly based on the lease deed' Therefore, it is a civil disPute.

8. As discussed above, though the petitioner is contending that it has submitted a representation to the Station House Ofhcer, Mirchowk Police Station' it has not filed proof of service of the same ald it has not made the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station as party to the present writ petition. It is also specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was established in the year 1935. The Mufeed-Ul-Anam Schools and Dharmavanth Trust and its Educational Institutions are running under the management of Hindi Prachar Sabha' Hyderabad. As discussed above, the Dharmavanth Hindi Educational Institutional Trust has already preferred a d KL,J ' . .l \o. 5.165 ol2O25 8 writ appei,Ll ard it is pending. Division Ben,:h tras Jready directe,:l re:;oondent No.3 to depute policr: pe rso::1t1el to the pr <:mr : es of the appellalt and open r ht lock. Therefc,.re, ,he said trust has to pursue th,: s216 *.', appeal. Irr ;tead of doing so and availing 1.he alte mative remedi,lr;, t re petitioner herein has hled thc pre se nt writ petitiorL sr:e king a direction to respondent Nos. -, 2,4 to 6, 9 ar.,7. ..(t to act accordingly, open the entreince of the petitior.,: r -school closed by respondent Nos.7 ancr B. It arnoun -s ':( interfering with civil disputes be.trve en the petitior:,:r i'nd respondent Nos,7 and 8. As, clis:ussed above, i1s per the order dated 16.O8.2021 ir W.P. No.14Bl ) oi 2021, respondent Nos.7 and [l are cl arming right :,'rer the subject property AS lea se -h clders. Howeve r, rt, is subject matter of writ appeal. Resprtndent Nos.7 :Lecl 3 are private respondents. llherefor e, the petitiont:r- ir; not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sor-rgh, in the present writ petition. 'l'herefor e, this writ petilron is liable to be dismissed. i I K]-,J w.P.No-r5465 0r2()25 9

9. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed' However, liberfy is granted to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies. There shatl be no order as to costs' r.l \ As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ Petition shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// sD/-T. TTRUMALA DEV' UTY REGIST SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI J VENKATRAM NARSIMHA REDDY, Advocate tqPqcl - i'ii" ccr'i"-optoC ScHool EDUCATIoN, High court for the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad. [OUTI r*o icsiobp'r-on nrvrruuE, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hvderabad [OUT] i;;-cd;b cFton scHool EDUCATIoN, Hish court for the state of Telanoana. at Hvderabad. IOUTI +;;'ic; t" GF'ron Htcu'rn EbucArloN, Hish court for the state of Telanoana. at Hvderabad. IOUT'I o;; ic i;'sRi ftAFARfHV vEIIKATESH, sc Fo GHMC [oPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 2 J 4 6 7 PSK BS i I I I I I I I I I i / HIGH COURT DATED: 1A/0612025 ORDER WP.No.1 S4tiS ot 2025 I CC TODAY J o k * .za/i '' r'= ;\{"-' lq /{: l;l tiiii ZftE z * l- L'') :-? .DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )\ rYl I 1 \ \