K. Prathap Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

5. Sri Dayananda Vegetable Market, Rep. by its Secretary, S. Narasimha Reddy S,/o. S. Hal Reddy Aged about 50 years; Office at H.No.'17-2-581 Madannapet, Hyderabad.

6. S. Narasimha. Reddy, S/o. Bal Reddy Aged 50 yrs, Occ: Secretary of Dayanand Vegetable Market, R:/o. H.No. 5-3/9 Vidya Bhojani High School, Chempapet Hyderabad

7. Y. tvluthyam Reddy, S/o. Late Y. Gopal ReddyAged about 65 years, Occ: 1 Retd. Employee Rl/o, H.No.17-2-63011 , Mladannapet, Hyderabad

8. D. Parameswar, S/o. Balaram Aged about 47 yearc, Occ: Business R/o. 17- 02-857lA, Madannapet Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not providing Police aid for implementation of the Rule of Law in discharge of public duties in terms of complainV representation of the petitioner dated 14 - 11 - 2016 seeking necessary Police aid/protection for implementing the order of decree granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the defendants etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner/Plaintiff over the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 1604/2014, dated 10-06-2016 passerl by the learned XXll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as arbitrary, ilegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and for conseque rtial direction to the respondents 2 to 4 herein to provide Police aid in impler enting the Order of Decree dated 10-06-2016 granted in favour of the petit )ner restraining the defendants etc. from interfering with the peaceful possessiorr rnd enjoyment of the petitio ner-pla intiff over the suit schedule property in O.S. No 60412014, dated '10- 06-20'1 6 passed by the learned XXll Junior Civil Jud,l :. City Civil Court, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 53271 0F 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir' ,urns12n""r stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mzr, be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide police aid to implement he Order of Decree dated 10-06-2016 in O.S. No. 1604/2014, passed bythe le:rr red XXll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in favour of the petit tner restraining the defendants etc. from rnterfering with the peaceful possessior rnd enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property in the interer t of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. SRIDHAR (Not Present) Counse'l for the Respondents No. 1 to 4: MR R. LAXMIKATI- REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No. 5 to 7: -- Counsel for the Respondents No. 8: SRI C.S. CHAKRAVAFI' HY AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION N0.43166 0F 20t6 o RDER: This Vrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following rekef/s.- _1 "... to issue Writ or Order more panicularly one in the narure of V'rit of mandamus declaring the action of the respondens 2 to 4 in not providing Police aid for implementation of the Rule of law in discharge of p"blii duties in terms of complanr/ representation of the petitioner dated i+-t r 6 seeking necessaryPolice aid,/protection for implementing the order -2O of decree granted in favour of the pedtioner resrraining the defen&ns etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoynenr of the Petitioner/Plaintiff over the suit schedule properry without due process of I-aw, in O.S. No. 1604,/2014, dared 10-06-2016 passed bythe leamed )OeI Junior Gvil Judge, Gry Gvil Court, Hyderabad as arbitrary ilegal and in violation of Ardcle 14 of the Constinrtion of India and for consequendal direction to the respondens 2 to 4 herein to provide Police implementing the Order of Decree datad LGO62O16 granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the defendants etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the pedrioner-plaintiff over tl-re suit schedule properry withorn due process of I-aw, in O.S. No. 1604/2014, dated 70-Q6-2016 passed by the leamed )OCI Junior Gvil Judge, City Gvil C-oun, Hlderaba4 i" rh. interest of Justice and pass such other Oder or Orden as this Flonble C-oun may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case....... ." -aid 2 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Fleard l4r.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, leamed fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. Ito 4. 2

4. Leamed fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that the contention of the petitioner is for proviii rg police aid in implementing the decree in O.S.No.1604 of 201,4 rassed by)OtrI Junior Gvil Judge, Gty Gvil Court, Hlderabad. Ftr: further submits that, petitioner ought to have availed appro[,] iate alternative remedy available, before Executing Court under Cr.P.C/BNSS. Without exhausting such remedies, seeldng dire ;tion and writ ,iurisdiction is impermissible as per the settled l:;al preposition, hence, prayed for dismissal.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. ' Flaving regard to the prapr and the pl,adings of the petitioner, it is obvious that, the petitioner has ::: tt initiated any proceedings before the Executing Gurt for impler rcntation of the decree and agairst the inaction of the police b,: bre the higher authorities or the Clurt concemed. It is now well ;ettled that, the petitioner vrithout showing the steps taken for interfering the decree for implementation of judgment ,r- rd decree is impermissible. This aspe$ has been corsidered b r this Court in 3 V.P.No.821of 2025 between S. Marthan Saheb and another etc. us. P. S. RAnl a n q a lu a n d o t h en e tc., reported n 2002Q) ALD (CRJ) 206.

7. That apart, even otherwise, the inaction of the police should have been taken before the Superintendenr of Police and the Magistrate Courr concemed as contemplated under Cr.P.C/BNSS and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam u. S.Janakz, AIR 2020 SC 387, has held that \Writ of Mandamus, cannor be issued and directing the respondent authoriries to register FIVtake up aaion though the report indicates commission of offence.

8. In view of the above settled legal position, rhe conrenrion mised by the petition stands nor maintainable. Accordrngly, this petition is dismissed. However, other rights of the petitioner are reserved available under law, if cause still survives. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SREENIVASA R ISTANT TRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI R. SRIDHAR, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI C, S. CHAKRAVARTHY;Advocate 3. Two CCs to GP for HOME, High Court for the State 4. Two CD Copies langana. [OUTJ MMT MP CHV I I I I i ! HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 ".HE S I 1 ? 1 JAN 2026 (:, (':'. ORDER WP.No.43166 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS