Dismissed

Aravind Patel S/o Narayanabhai Patel v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025WP/16944/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking police protection. The Court held that maintaining a separate writ petition is not permissible when efficacious statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C./BNSS exist, though the matter is reserved for future consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with future consideration reserved regarding the repetition of pleas.

Aravind Patel S/o Narayanabhai Patel Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16944 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aravind Patel S/o Narayanabhai Patel, Aged 56 years, Occ Business,

¶9

Jayanth N Patel S/o Narayanabhai Patel, aged 54 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Flat No.401 to 403 B-Block, Jayadurga Towers, New Boiguda, Secunderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District At Kurnool.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Allagadda Police Station, At Allagadda, Kurnool District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in not considering the representations of the petitioners dt.6-5-2016 to provide protection to them is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to provide police protection to the petitioners and their families.

¶19

l.A..NO: 1 OF 2016(WPM P. NO: 20870 OF 2016)

¶20

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 nos.2 and 3 to take immediate steps on the representation dt.6-5-2016 submitted by the petitioners to provide police protection pending disposal of the Writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR (Nor pREsENr)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt R.LAXMIKANTH REDDy, AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

T'his Wrir Petition is tiled uncier Arriclc 226 of Constitution oi India seeking the follorving rclief/s:-

¶27

"...to issuc a rvrit ordcr or dircctit)n morc particularly'ofle in the natLrrcr o[ \'rit of N{anclanius clcclilrinu thc :rction^<>f tirc rcsponclcnt nos.2 and 3 irr not consiclcring the rcpre scntations of thc pctitioners dt.6-5-2()tti t<i provide protcction t<i thcm is^{illesal, arbiri:an,ancl} r-iolat-ivc oI^principles oi iratural lusricc ancl c,>nscqtrcnrlv ditcct thc rcspondcnt Nr>s.2 anci 3 to nr<;,r'icle police protccrjon t() thc pctitioners an<i their families, and pass..."

¶28

) None appeared on behali oi thc petiticners"

¶29

-). I har.e heard N{r.R.Laxmikanth Reciciy, learned Assistant

¶30

(]overnment Pleader ior Home appearing ior respondent

¶31

Nos.1 to 5.

¶32

Learned Assistant Governlrrcrlt Plcader for Home submits that, as per Ilx.P-3, the petitioners sul>mitred a representation on 06.05.20i6 to the Commissioner r;f .Poiice, Flvderabad, as w'eil as to

¶33

the Superintendent of Poiice, I{urnc-rol District, seeking protection. Flou,er.er, rlo action^.vas taken pursuant thcreto.^'fhc r;eiitioners

¶34

)

¶35

lrar.-e. thcrefo*;, llpproached^{this court b", r'.;av of rhc prcscntwrlt}

¶36

pcriririr [Jc tur-ther^{pleaCs that thc lau, is nor,'rvell settiedthat the} cxrraor<.iinan, iurisdicrion^{of this court undcr .\r'ticle 226 O[ t]re} Consriturion c>f India^{caflnot bc invoked as a substitute for} cfiicacious srarutorT^{remedies available underthe Ct-P-C-/tlNSS} ai-rd iir sucir scttled^{iegal position, the present rvrit pctition is not} lu-rairri:rinablc'

¶37

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

¶38

'fhe peritioners contend that respondent No. 2 failecl t{)

¶39

ctinsicler t6eir repfesentation^{ciated 06.05.2016. Fkru,c\rcif, as rightly} nr>intcri ()ut b), fhe iearned^{Assistant Gor.ernrnetrtPleaclcr for} [-ion1:, if the conceffled police authorities fail to^{tirke a-ppropriate} zrction. rhe petitioners afe required to invoke thc ctt-icacirlus t ctntdics c;<1trcssh,- provided uncie r the Codc o[^(-rirninal I)rcrccclrire. Lgl3 (nou, Bharatil'a \aguik .5'urak.rltu ,'unlilu. 2023).

¶40

Instcad oi oursuing such statutorY remedies, the p(rtiti()ncrs have dircctlr- inr.okecj thc extraordinary iurisdiction oi riris (.r>urt Lindcr Ar-q!c]c- 226 r>{ t}-rc C<>nstittrtion of India.

¶41

¶42

It is well settled,^{as held tn Sakiri ['/asuv. .ftate ol'U'P' and} Otherc (AIR^{2008 SC 907) and reatfln'med rn L'1. Subramaniumu' 'l'} .lanaki^{(AIR 2020 SC 387), thar ri'hen adecluate and eificacious} alternative remedies^{ate available under the criminal procedure} frarnework, recoufse^{to writ} iurisciicrion^{is not maintainabie.In} light of this legal^{position, the present writ petition cannot be} entcrtained.

¶43

B Nevertheiess, the^{iiberry of the petitioncrs ro avail themselves} of appropriate^{remediesunder |2q', incluciing those available under} the Cr.P.C./BNSS,^{rerrrains expressl)'resen'ed'}

¶44

9 Accordingly, this^{writ petidonis dismissed.f'here shall be no} ofder as to costs.

¶45

h4iscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if an','. sirail st-arrd closeci'}

¶46

SD/. M.NAGAM

¶47

//TRUE^COPY// CTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49