The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare that the inaction of the 3rd respondent on the complaint dated 1gl1gt2}19 as illegal and failure to exercise the duty cast upon him and issue an order, direction or writ, particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of N/landamus directing the 3rd Respondent to give police protection to the petitioners in safeguarding property and preventing the onslaught of the 4th Respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 direct the 3rd Respondent to give police protection to the petitioners in safeguarding the below mentioned property and preventing the onslaught of the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.V.RAGHAVAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR PE ON No. 9 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T' Vinod Kumar) This writ Petirion is filed with the following prayer: .....pleased lo declarc tltar the inac"tion of the 3rd yespondent on thecomplaintdatedlg-()g-20lgasillegalandfailuretoexercise the duty cast upon him unt{ issrrc an order' direction or writ' particularlyawritinlhenatttreoft{/ritofMandamusdirecting the 3rd Respondent to give police protection to the petitioners in safeguarding property and preventing the onslaught o.f the 4th Respondent ora po,, such other orcler or orders may deemfit and proper in the circuntstances of the case'

2.HeardSriV.V.Raghavanlearnedcounselforpetitioner, learned Government Pleader fbr Ilome, Sri srinivas velagapudi appearing on behalf of respondent No'4 and perused the record' 3. Petitioner contends that though he had obtained a judgment anddecreedt.20.l0.20l9inhisfavourino.S.No.298of20l5on thefileofthelAdditionalJuniorCivilJudge,RangaReddy,the respondents-authoritiesarenotprovidingpoliceprotectiontothe petitionerpursuanttotheaforesaidjudgmentanddecree'which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as illegal' withaconsequentialdirectiontotherespondentstoprovide police protection. I 2

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 r.vould submit that the petitioner by approaching the competent Court of Civil -iurisdiction had obtained a judgment and decrce in rcspect of suit schedule property, which is an Immovable propcrr): that since. the petitioner, having availed civil remedies in respect of the suit schedulc property, is required to take further steps for executin_E the aforesaid judgment and decree obtained by her and for the said reason cannot approach the respondents-authorities and seek fbr providing police aid for implementation o1'thc.iudgment and decree, as any such action taken by the respondents-authorities would be contrary to the police duties, which thev are required to undertak.e in terms of the provisions of the Police Act

5. Learned Government Pleader fuither submits that the petitioner without availing the remedy of execution o1' the judgment and decree under Order XXI of CPC and also obtainin.g an order of providing police protection by way of execution application therein, had approached the respondents- atrthorities \ seeking for police aid for implementing the judgment and decree and also this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, claiming the said action of the respondents-authorities in not 't 3 providing police aid for enforcing the judgment and decree, to br illegal and arbitrary even though execution of judgment and decree cannot be sought through the police authorities.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner instead of availing further remedies provided under CPC is seeking to implement the aforesaid order by using police force which is not permitted in [aw.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner by the present writ Petition has called in question the inaction of the respondents-authorities in providing police protection for implementation of the judgment and decree dt.20.10.2019 in his favoutr in O.S.No .298 of 2015 without showing to this Court of the petitioner having taken steps for enforcing the aforesaid decrep obtained by her in the civit suit by filing execution proceedings and also an apptication therein seeking police aid for implomentation of the said judgment and decree'

9. It is settled law that the power of police authorities is only with regard to ensuring maintenance of law and order and the 4 authorities cannot involve themselves in civil dispute (see: s. Masthan Saheb and others v/s. P.S.R Anjaneyulu and otherst).

10. Since, the petitioner by approaching the respondents- .authorities is seeking to enforce the judgment and decree of the civil CourL this court is of the view that the approach adopted by thc petitioner in approaching the respondents-authorities for implementation/enforcement of the judgment and decree itself per se is c<lntrary to law without availing further remedies provided under cPC, much less for her to approach this court by Lhe presont Writ Petition. ll. Furter. the petitioner without pursuing the remedy available under ordcr xxl cPC i.e., through the execution process, dircctly sought police protection from the respondents fbr enfbrcement of the judgment and decree by bypassing the judicial fbrum's mandated process, rendering the provisions of order xxt cPC redundant, as execution cannot be enforcecl through police authorities. 12- Sinc;e. the petitioner herein had obtained a jucrgment and decree in o.S.No.298 of 2015 on 20.t0.2019, has to initiate . action firstl1' by filing execution petition and secondly., execution 2002 (2)AnWR s32 I r 1 i I 5 application therein. For the said reason, this court is of the view that the petitioner cannot seek for execution of decree in a writ petition and cannot approach the respondents-authorities and seek to invoke the police power. Therefore, the writ petition questioning the respondents' refusal to extend police assistance cannot be sustained.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that the presentWritPetitionaSf,rledisdevoidofmeritanditis accordingly dismissed- No order as to costs' Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthiswrit petition shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR AsslsrAr.rr iiid'isinnn / 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ ',. one CC to SRI V'V'R49IAVAN' Advocate [oPucl 2. Two ccs to-b.pioi rioME, ii.il{Effi f,;rinu siu'te of Teransana, at ; 8T1"6T?3 sHHHNIVAS VELAGAPUDI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies PSK. TKS 8},t(. f 6 HIGH COURT DATED t2710612025 ORDER WP.No.26604 of 2019 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tHE Sr4 a i t I \ \ 0E l'l0lJ ilE a c) i D c.^!J PA -t pt''( Cr ze \to\)4