Dismissed¶42

Syed Shaheen Pervaiz v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Aug 2025WP/12347/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection; writ of mandamus; maintainability; Article 226; alternative remedy under CrPC; Telangana High Court; N. Tukaramji; WP No. 12347 of 2017; decided 26-08-2025; M. Subramaniam AIR 2020 SC 387; dismissed without costs; rights reserved; Asif Nagar, Meer Chowk, Charminar police stations; report dated 27.03.2017 closed as civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was dismissed and no order as to costs was passed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, directed to stand closed; petitioner's rights reserved to pursue the cause in accordance with law. ¶42

Syed Shaheen Pervaiz Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking police protection through a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when effective alternative remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure and no exceptional circumstances are shown. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, where effective alternative remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction from this Court under Article 226 (here, for police protection) is ex facie not maintainable; accordingly, in light of the settled position of law fortified by M. Subramaniam (AIR 2020 SC 387), the prayer made in the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the dismissal for want of maintainability, the rights of the petitioner are expressly reserved to prosecute his cause, if it survives, in accordance with law.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus for police protection held not maintainable where CrPC remedy is available - High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (N. Tukaramji, J.), WP No. 12347 of 2017, decided 26-08-2025. An advocate-petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Station House Officers of Asif Nagar, Meer Chowk and Charminar police stations (respondent nos. 4-6) in not providing police help to be illegal, improper and arbitrary, and directing provision of protection to him and his family from three named individuals (respondent nos. 7-9). None appeared for the petitioner (his counsel being marked not present); the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 1-6, submitted that a report dated 27.03.2017 had been enquired into preliminarily, found to lack substance and to be civil in nature, and closed. Holding that where effective alternative remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure and no exceptional circumstances exist, seeking a direction under Article 226 is ex facie not maintainable - a position noted as fortified by M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387 - the Court dismissed the writ petition without costs, directed pending miscellaneous applications to stand closed, and expressly reserved the petitioner's rights to prosecute his cause in accordance with law.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FO'R THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYI}ERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENW SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12347 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Shaheen Pervaiz, S/o: Late lshtiaq Hussain, aged about 63^years, Occ: Advocate RJo H No. 12-2-821c59, fFlat No.102] Santoshnagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad And Chamber at^{',2-2-121418,} Asifnagar HYDERABAD

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary^{Home Development.} Secreatriat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Director General of Police, Telangana State Police^Head Quarters. Lakdikapul, Hyderabad

¶14

3, The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city, At^{Basheerbagh. HYDERABAD}

¶15

The Station House Officer, Asif Nagar Police Station,^Hills Colony, I\ilehd ipatnam, Hyderabad

¶16

The Station House Officer, Meer Chowk Police Station,^Hydrabad

¶17

The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station,^Hydrabad

¶18

N,4.Satyanarayana @ Babu, S/o: M. Prasadarn, Fi/o H.NO.^12-1-490125. Shankarnaga r Asifnagar, Hyderabad

¶19

Ivlohd. Pasha @ Basha, Sio: Mohd. Hussain, Aged 35^{years, Occupation:Job} Typist R/o H.NO.2-3-647181261 ,Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad

¶20

Sunil Kumar Mahajan, S/o not known to The^{petitioneraged about25 years'} occ TRS leader. C/o H.NO. 12-1-49Ol25, Shankarnagar^{Asifnagar,Hyderabad}

¶21

...RESPONOENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{HrghCourtmay be} pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of lVandamus, dedaring the inaction^{of respondents 4,5 and 6 in}

¶23

not providing police help to the^{petitioneris highlyillegal, irr rroper,arbitraryand} unconditional and against the^{principlesof naturaljustice,c<> tsequentlydirect the} respondents 4,5 and^{6 to provide appropriate protection to t re petitionerand his} family members^{from the respondents7 to 9 and their henchtren'}

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP.^{NO:15343OF 20'.171}

¶25

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the cir umstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High court mzrl be pleased to direct} the respondents^{4,5 and 6 to register complaint againstthe respondents7 to I} issue FIR copy by^{taking appropriatelegal action againstthr respondents7 to I} pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M. A. MUDASSAR KHAN(l\l( lT PRESENT)}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 6: SRIR. LAXMIKAN'IH REDDY'} AGP FOR HOME

¶28

Gounsel for the Respondent^{No.7: SREENIVASA RAORA/ ,LAPATI}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent^{No's.8 and 9:} -'

¶30

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶31

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶32

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.l2347 OF 2017}

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking^{for the fdlowingrelief:}

¶35

"to rssue any approPriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^{particularly one in the} nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaring the inaction of respondentNos 4. 5} and 6 rn not^{provrdtng po|ce helpto the petitioneris hidhlyillegal rmproper'} arbrtrafy. unconditional^{and againstthe principles of naturallustrce} consequently drrect the^{resPondentNos.4,5 and 6 to provideappropflate} protectron to the petrttoner and his family^{members from the respondents7 to} .,j .: td thelr henchtl]en'.

¶36

None appeared for the^petitioner.

¶37

I have heard^{Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant} Government^{Pleader for Horne appearing for respondentNos.1to 6'}

¶38

Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy,^{learned AssistantGovernment Pleader} for Home appearing for^{respondents/police ralould submit that the} petitioner has submitted report dated 27.03.2017^{and after conducting} preliminary enquiry, as there was no substance^{ard the matteris civil} in nature, closed the report.^{Furtherpleadsthat the contentionsraised} in the^petition are unFoundd.^{Hence prayedfor dismissal of the} petition.

¶39

5 I have perused the materials^{on record.}

¶40

)

¶41

The prayer sought by the petitioner is for f,r rviding police protection and the inaction of the respondent Nos.4 to ,i in this regard. The development reported by the respondents is makinc out that there was no request for police protection and the report filed l- rs been found as civil in nature. ln such position, if at all the petitioner l aggrieved for inaction, ought to have availed the effective alternativ,-. remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPCr. Without such measure and in the absence of any exceptional circumst tnces seeking a direction from this Court under Article 226 of the Cons;l tution of lndia is ex facie found not maintainable. This principle, it has been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam r S. Janaki & Ofhers, AIR 2020 SC 387 ln light of the settted posili, n of law, the prayer made in the present writ petrtion is not maintaina rle. However, the rights of the petitioner are reserved to prosecutrl the cause if survives in accordance with law

¶42

7 . ln view of the above. the writ petition is dismissec There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applicatrons, if any, shall st rnd closed.

¶44

S )/. L. VIJAYA^I AXMI ASSiI ;TANT REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,