Dismissed¶60

Mr. Akbar Kaleel v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025WP/30309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru | WP No. 30309 of 2025 (GM-POLICE) | decided 16-10-2025 | Justice Suraj Govindaraj | Mandamus for police protection to run hotel business and enforce ex-parte interim injunction dated 01.08.2025 in OS No.5575 of 2025 | Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC | DPR No. 377/2025 and DPR No. 00404/2025 | D.J. Halli police station jurisdiction | Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India | Writ dismissed - no police protection absent a trial Court order; remedy lies in applications before the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

The extracted interim order in OS No.5575 of 2025 relates only to the grant of an injunction restraining interference with the petitioner's possession, which possession apparently has already been interfered with. ¶53

Mr. Akbar Kaleel Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (police authorities) can be directed to provide police protection to the petitioner and his hotel premises from unlawful interference, threats and physical assault by respondents 7 to 9, and to allow smooth running of the petitioner's hotel business. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Since no particular order has been passed by the trial Court granting police protection to run the petitioner's hotel business, the police cannot be directed to permit and protect the petitioner in running the hotel business.

¶57

Key takeaways

For violation of the interim ('side') order, the petitioner would have to make necessary applications in the pending civil proceedings.ratio¶57
It is open to the petitioner to file a necessary application before the trial Court for appropriate relief, which shall be considered in accordance with merit.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-Police) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, decided 16.10.2025 by Suraj Govindaraj, J., High Court of Karnataka: the petitioner, proprietor of M/s Bismillah Hotel, sought a mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (State/police authorities) to provide police protection to him and his hotel premises at Tannery Main Road, Bangalore, from unlawful interference, threats and physical assault by respondent Nos. 7 to 9, to allow smooth running of the hotel business, and to take action on DPR No. 377/2025 dated 02.08.2025 and DPR No. 00404/2025 dated 21.08.2025; the relief was anchored to the ex-parte interim injunction dated 01.08.2025 in OS No.5575 of 2025 restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from dispossessing the plaintiff and interfering with peaceful possession till next date of hearing, with compliance under Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC and emergent notice on I.A. No.2 returnable 15-10-2025. Held: the interim order related only to restraining interference with possession, which had apparently already been interfered with; breach of such a 'side order' must be agitated by applications in the pending civil proceedings; as the trial Court had passed no particular order for police protection to run the hotel business, the police cannot be directed to permit and protect the petitioner in running the hotel business; the petitioner remained free to seek appropriate relief before the trial Court. Petition dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30309 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. AKBAR KALEEL, S/O MOHAMED KALEEL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S BISMILLAH HOTEL, #19 AND 20, GROUND & FIRST FLOOR, B.S.A. ROAD, TANNERY MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560045.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DHARMAPALA GOWDA A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CRIME), INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION JURISDICTION, BANGALORE - 560045.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560045.

¶21

MR.B. SALEEM, S/O BASHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, VINAYAKA TALKIES MAIN ROAD, THANGAMALANI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, D.J.HALLI, BANGALORE -560 045.

¶22

MR. NGENDRA PRASAD, S/O HARINATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 1^ST CROSS, LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE -560027.

¶23

SMT. N.ASHWINI, W/O NAGENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 1^ST CROSS, LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE -560 027.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. K.P YASHODHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO'S. 2 TO 6 TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AND TO HIS HOTEL PREMISES SITUATED AT NO.19 AND 20, GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR, B.S.A. ROAD, TANNERY MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560045, FROM UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE, THREATS, AND PHYSICAL ASSAULT BY MR. SALEEM AND HIS ASSOCIATES (R7, R8 AND R9) AND TO ALLOW THE SMOOTH RUNNING OF THE HOTEL BUSINESS BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 6.

¶34

Notice to respondents No.7 to 9 is dispensed with in view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

¶36

a. "Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No's. 2 to 6 to provide police protection to the Petitioner and to his hotel premises situated at No.19 and 20, Ground and First Floor, B.S.A. road, Tannery Main Road, Bangalore-560045, from unlawful interference, threats, and physical assault by Mr. Saleem and his associates (R7, R8 and R9) and to allow the smooth running of the hotel business by the petitioner, which is produced at Annexure-E

¶37

b. Direct the Respondents to take immediate and appropriate legal action against the accused persons named in DPR No. 377/2025 dated 02.08.2025 and DPR No. 00404/2025 dated 21.08.2025 Annexure-F and G.

¶38

c. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

Essentially, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus to

¶40

the police to provide police protection to implement

¶41

the ex-parte order of injunction dated 01.08.2025,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

passed in OS No.5575 of 2025. The said order reads

¶46

as under;

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Defendant No.1 to 3 are hereby restrained from dispossessing plaintiff from suit schedule property and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property till next date of hearing.

¶49

In the meanwhile, the plaintiff shall make compliance under Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC:

¶50

Issue S/S, order of Temporary Injunction and emergent notice on I.A. No.2 against defendant No. 1 to 3. r/by 15-10-2025.

¶51

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

¶52

is that post the said order, respondent No.7-herein has interfered with the possession of the petitioner and removed the equipment of the petitioner and not permitted the petitioner to run the business of a hotel in the subject premises.

¶53

A perusal of the above extracted interim order only relates to the grant of an injunction restraining interference with the possession of the petitioner, which possession apparently has already been interfered with.

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In that view of the matter, the petitioner would have

¶57

to make necessary applications in the pending proceedings for violation of the side order. Insofar as the grant of police protection to run his hotel business, there is no particular order which has been passed by the trial Court in that regard, and as such, the police cannot be directed to permit and protect the petitioner in running the hotel business.

¶58

It is, however, open to the petitioner to file a necessary application before the trial Court for appropriate relief, which shall be considered in accordance with merit.

¶59

With the above observations, the petition stands

¶60

dismissed .

¶61

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Mr. Akbar Kaleel v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Akbar Kaleel v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krishi -Ab-Nc(Jv) Vs Deputy Chief Engineer

Sri. Arun Kumar Puthila Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Eshwarappa Vs Union of India

Mr Vasudeva Gadiyar K Vs Canara Bank Ltd.

Dr. M. Chowde Gowda Vs the Institution of Engineers (India)

Smt. Shasikala J S Vs the State of Karnataka