This principle has been clearly laid down in sakiri vasu v. State of lJttar Pradesh and reaffirmed by the recent decision of the .', Hon'ble

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal, Secretary, Home 2. The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad., 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Chandrayangutta, 5. Essa Misri, S/o Not known, Aged about 46 years, Occ Business, R/o. 6. Habeeb Abu Bakar, S/o Not known, AEed about 50 years, Occ Business, Ri/o. 7. lrfan, S/o not known, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, R/o. Khazipura, Shahlibanda, Hyderabad. Khazipura, Shahlibanda, Hyderabad. Chand rayangutta, Hyderabad. Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 pass order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No. 4 for interfering into civil dispute and calling the petitioner regularly to the police station without any reason, at the instigation of respondents 5 to 7 by pressurizing the petitioner to settle the dispute which is civil in nature with regard to O.S. Palace Function Hall, situated in the premises bearing No.18-13-618818,12, Hashmabad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad and consequently (a)To direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated-03-03-2016 made by the petitioner with regard to the interference by the 4th respondent at the instigation of respondents 5 to 7 in respect of settlement of civil dispute with regard to Q.S. Palace Function Hall, situated in the premises bearing No.18-13-6lBBlBt2, Hashmabad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, (b) To declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, against law and against the provisions of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 10133 OF 2010) 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 respondent No. 4 not to call the petitioner to the police station by harassing him to settle the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 with regard to O.S. Palace Function Hall, situated in the premises bearing No. 18-13-6/88/8/2, Hashmabad chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. SANTOSH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, Counselfor the Respondent Nos. 5to7:-- The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR HOME :THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI , , ,, ., 1 WRIT PETITION No.7973 OF 2016 . ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the fol[owing relief "to pass order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No 4 for interfering tnto civtl dispute and calling the petitioner regularly to the police station without any reason at the instigation of respondents 5 to 7 by pressurizing the petitioner to settle the dispute which is civil in nature with regard to O S Palace Function Hall ,;. situated in the premtses be:aring N9 18136/88/8/2 Hashmabad Chandrayangutta Hyderabad and consequently a) To direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated030320l6 made by the petitioner ,. with regard to the tnterference by the 4th respondent at the instigation of :". respondents 5 to 7 in respect of settlement of civil dispute with regard to Q S ;|:'Palace Function Hall situated in the premises bearing No 18136/88/8/2 ti,:.Hashmabad Chandrayangutta Hyderabad b) To declare thq action of the 'i respondents as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice against law and against the provisions of Arttcle I9 and 2I of the Constitution of India and pass".

2. None appears for the petitioner

3. I have heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant ,, ,1;,;:,government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home r tted that,the police have never interfered in civil disputes ngn' exerted pressure on the petitio ner to settle any such disputes, as J:l.i j': .:!; ;:;..' ; i ';' ,, ::, ,, . .ir:ir':, .' iiir,: : :rr, ... ri i 1r1 ,r!' t:t :j 1l.l :. . " *x,. 2 alleged. However, with respect to the petitioner's contention that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to act on his representation dated

03.03.2016, it was argued that such a claim is not maintainable, since the petitioner has not exhausted other remedies available under law. Accordingly, it was contended that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the petitioner's allegation that he was summoned to the chandrayangutta Police Station 'on 25.02.2016 and 01.03.20[6 and pressured to settle a civil dispute, though the responderrts deny any such conduct, it is considered appropriate to direct respondent No. 4 not to interfere in civil disputes referred to by the petitioner, even under the guise of any criminal proceedings, except strictly in accordance with law. This direction is accordingly issued.

7. Insofar as the relief sought for a direction to act upon the representation dated 03.03.2016 is concerned, the pleadings make it evident that, apart from submitting the representation, the ipetitioner .;- . t, has not demonstrated what steps were pursued thereafter ,:t - 'ii or how the matter was followed up. It is by now well settled that ,,i invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the , Constitution of India, without first exhausting alternative remedies, save and except extraordinary circumstances, is impermissible. \ \

8. This principle has been clearly laid down in sakiri vasu v. State of lJttar Pradesh and reaffirmed by the recent decision of the .', Hon'ble Supreme Court (three-judge bench) in M. Subramaniam & Ors. v. S. Janaki & Ors., which fortif,red the dicfum in Sakiri Vasu- .: The Apex Court has categorically held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the authorities to register an FIR or .' even if the complaint prima facie discloses the commission '9. In light of the above, while liberty is reserved to the r, petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies with respect to the ,,,; ' l!'i ''r ' ,:,; _: 4 complainl: dated 03.03.2016, the prayer seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the said representation stands dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/. A. JAYASREE STANT REGISTRAR AsPr //TRUE COPY// OFFICER

1. The Principal, Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, T.S.,Hyderabad-4.

2. The Commissionerof Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad., 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Chandrayangutta, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRl. B. SANTOSH, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BM Y( HIGH COURT DATED;1310812025 ORDER WP.No .7973 of 2016 * o) Lt- 1 .$' s e,, \- &crH * PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ."dd \o .*ru €