IVl.Jayavarth v. The State of Terangana

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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of respondent No 3 in not implementing the orders dt.o2.o8.2017 in lA No.203/2017 in lA No.187/2017 in OS No.1661/2017 passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad, despite acknowledging the said order and Legal Notice d1.26.11.2017 got issued by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and un- constitutional and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to implement the said orders dt.02.08.2017 in lA No.203/2017 in lA No.187/2017 in oS No.1661/2017 passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' thereby providing police protection to implement the injunction order dt.19.07.2017 in lA No.187/2017 in OS No.'1661/2017 passed by the XIX Jr--rior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 51473 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Crr rrt may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 forthwith to implement the Orde r"s dt.02.08.2017 in lA No.20312017 in lA No.187/2017 in OS No.1661/2017 pal;: ed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, thereby providir- I police protection to implement injunction Order dt.1 9.07 .2017 in lA No.'1 87/20 I ' in OS No.1 661 /2O l 7 passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court i yderabad, during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. KHAJA AIJAZUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents 1 To 3: SRI M. SRINIVAS Ar3 e FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THB HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAITAMJI WRIT PETITION No.41497 OF 2017 o RDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the lo[lowing relief/s:- "...to issue on (q)propridc rtt'it, ortlcr ttr tlirection, nnre in lhe nature of Mtmdamu-s, decloring tlrc oction of the 2"'t respondent in harlssing thc petitioner to -\ettle oti the disPutc.\ tt'ilh lhe 3'd resprtndenl even though the said dispule is purelv ct civil tlisltule u'hereas interfering in the samc' as illcgal' rtrbitrary untl is in t'iolatiott of-Articles 14' 19, 2l ol tha Constitution o/ lntlitr antl consequenlll, dirccl the tcqtondcnts not to interfere v'ith thc aforesoitl dis[)Lttcs helwcen tlrc pelilioncr (tnd 3"1 tt:spondent. . .."

2. None appeared lor the petitioner

3. I have heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader lor Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3

4. The Learned Assistant Govemurent Pleader for Hotne subrnitted that the petitioner had never approached thc respondent polioe authorities seeking police protection. However, the respondents received a legal notice that lacked specific particulars. Since the petitioner did not appfoach the police, protection was not extended.

5. I have carefully perused the nraterials on record.

6. The contention of the pctitionel is tlrat police protection has not been provided despite the orrler dated 02.08.2017 in l.A. No. 203 of 2017 passed by 2 the XtX Junior CiviI Judge, City Civil Court, even after a lcgal notice is issued seeking implernentation of the said ordcr

7. Upon pen:sal of the legal notice, it appeats that t e petitioner sought the provision oI a police picket or the intensification o[- 1-lirr -olling at the properly, considering thc sensitivily oI the issue. The notice furtL o reads that, should the respondents fail to comply with the order, the petitio r rr rvould approach the appropriate forurn

8. Frorn the stand taken by the respondent police. i is evident that police protection was not extended. It is a well-settled plopos Ll on of law that when a civil Court grants an intetim injunction, ancl a parll apprehends violation thereof, thc appropriate course of action is to approi:( h the same Courl for enforcement, including seeking police aid under its inl )rent powers or under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil [,r.or:r dure, 1908. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily bc invr,l ed for irnplernentation of civil Courl orders, as held by the Hon'ble Supreurc C.r rrt in K.K. Velusanty v. N. Palanisanty [(201 I ) I I SCC 2751 and Srare o/' []ilt.t v. Dh irerrdra Kuntor [(i995) 4 SCC 229]. Thcrcfbre, the prolrcr rernedy ava Iable to the petitioner was to approach the Court by filing an appropriate ap1 Iication, in respect of which the pleadings alc silent. -)

9. In these circumstanccs, reseruing the petitioner's right to approach the Couft below secking an appropriate renredy if the cause of action still subsists, this writ petition is disposed of. Therc shall bc no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending il'any, shall stand closed SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, t \

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Terangana,, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer,, Santoshnagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRl. KHAJA AIJAZUDDIN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies DAN rrs gg HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 ORDER WP.No.41497 of 2017 '1 ES I (J i E itAfl 2Q6 t * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @,.ryk