Tirmaiashetti Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

13217 1

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION Na:27471 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tirmaiashetti Venkateswarlu, S/o. Subb Rao, aged about 91^{years Occ.} Agriculture, R/o. Nerella Village Kamalapur Mandal, Karimangar District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 3 The lnspector of Police, Huzurabad Police Station, Huzurabad Karimnagar District

¶13

4 The Station House Officer, Kamalapur Police Station, Kamalapur^Karimnagar District

¶14

5 Chelika Rambabu, S/o. Not known, aged 40^years Occ. agriculture,^Rl/o. Laxmajipalli village Jammikunta Mandal, Karim nagar District

¶15

6 Chelika Mogili, S/o. A. Durgaiah, aged 55^years Occ. agriculture,^{R/o. Nerella} Village Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶16

7 lmmadishetti Srinivas, S/o. Mutaiah, aged 48^years, Occ. agriculture^{- ex-} sarpanch R/o. Nerella Village Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar 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 of Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents^police in not^providing police protection to the petitioner to enter into her lands to an extent of Ac.4.00^gts in Survey No. 282 situated at Nerella Village, Kamalapur Mandal,^Karimangar District basing on the Decree and Judgment dt 17.08.2015^passed in^{l.A. No. 140} of 2015 in OS No. 20 of 2015^passed by the Senior Civil Judge at^Huzurabad, Karimangar District \and also the^{police protection petition} as illegal, arbitrary^and

¶19

against the principles of naturaljustice and violation of Articles 14, 1g, 21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to provide pol ce protection to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶20

t.A. :1 OF 201 . NO:34025 oF 2016)

¶21

Petiton under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavii. filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respontlents 2 to 4 police to provide police aid to the petitioner land lands of an extent of A,c.4.00 gts in Survey No. 282 situated at Nerella Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Kerrimangar District basing on the Decree and Judgment dt 17.0g.2015 passed in l.A. No. 140 of 2015 in OS No. 20 of 20'15 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at l'{uzurabad, Karimangar District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

counsel for the Petitioner: sRtAJAy KUMAR MADtsETTy (Not present)

¶23

counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4: MR R. LA"\MIK,ANTH REDDY AGP FOR HOME

¶24

counselfor the Respondents No. 5 to 7: SIRIMALLA DHANA LAKSHMI

¶25

The Court rnade the following: ORDER

¶26

I

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶28

TWRIT PET,ITION No.27471 OF 2016

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Vrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

¶31

"... to issue a \flrig Gder of Direction more particularly one in tle nature of^rtrfrit of lMandamus, declaring the action of the respondenrs police in not providing police protection to the petitioner to enter into her lands to an ext€nt of Ac.+.OO gts in Suwey No. 282 sinrarcd at Nerella Village, Kamalapur lvlandal, Karimangar District basing on the Decree and Judgment^{dt L7.08.2015 passed in t.A No. 140 of 2015 in OS No. 20 of} 2015 passed by rh. Senior Gvil Judge at Hwurabad, Karimangar District and also the police protection petition as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice and violation of Articles t4, L9,2L and 300-A of C.onstitution of India and consequently direct the respondens police to provide police protection to the petitioner in the interest of^justice..... ."

¶32

None appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

¶33

I have heard Mr.Rlacmikanth Reddy leamed fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. Lto4.

¶34

karned fusistant Government Pleader for Home submi* that the petitioners' pra)rer is essentially for police protection and that the grievance arises out of the alleged inaction of respondent

¶35

2

¶36

Nos. L to 4/police authorities. It is contended that if rhe petitioners are aggrie'ed by the failure of rhe police in exrending such protection, they ought to have invoked the remedies available to them under the C-ode of Giminal Procedure (G.P.C) /Bharatirp, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).^\ff/ithout exhausting rhose statutory n:medies, filirg the present writ petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

¶37

I have carefullyperused the materials placed on record.

¶38

The substance of the petitioners' case is that the police authorities failed to provide protection in pusuance of the order dated L7.08.20L5 passed in I.A No. 140 of ZOLS in O.S. No. 20 of 2O15.In this regard, it is pertinent to note that a CoordinatJ Bench of this G,urt, in \f.P. No. 8958 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025, dealt with an identical issue. It was categorically held therein that unless the petitic,ners demonstrate bona fide steps hken to enforce the decree/ or,ler passed in a civil suit, by initiating appropriate execution proceedings before the compercnr civil court, including a

¶39

J

¶40

prayrr therein for police protection to ensure implementation of the decree, fili"g a writ petition under Anicle 226 is not maintainable

¶41

This reasoning is fonified by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme C-ourc rn Sakii Vasu u. State of U.P., AIR 2008 SC 907,later affirmed n M. Subramaniam a. S. Janaki, AIR 2020 SC 387, vrherein it was held that parties must first avail themselves of the remedies specifically provided under the G.P.C before invoking extraordinary writ^{jurisdiction.} The rationale behind this principle is to preserye the hierarchy of legal remedies and to prevent writ^jurisdiction from being converted into a substitute for statutory prccedures.

¶42

f

¶43

In light of the seftled legal position, the present writ petition, whereby the petitioners seek d.irect police protection on the ..-:,..i stren$h of an ad interim order in a civil suit, is not maintainable. Nevertheless, consid.ti"g the pleadings on record and the fact that an interim order^{has indeed} been passed by this C-ourt,^Iiberryis

¶44

4

¶45

reserved to the peritionerc ro avail themselves of the appropriate

¶46

remedies be'fore the competent Executing Cotut, which is vested with jurisdiction ro ensure enforcement of decrees and orders

¶47

under the Code of Gvil Procedure, 1908.

¶48

9 - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as nor

¶49

maintainabl:. There shall be no order as to cosrs.

¶50

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending rf. any,shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

6

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Prl. secretary,. Home Department secretariat, state of Telangana,Hyderabad

¶57

? Il',u^{superint6n{gntof porice,Karimnagar, Karimnaqar} District 3. The lnspector of^porice, Huzurabad poiice' siition, Huzriauio- xarimnagar District

¶58

The Station House Officer, Kamalapur Police Station, Kamalapur Karimnagar District

¶59

one cc to sRtAJAY KUMAR MADts-ET_Ty, Advocate [opUC] 6. one cc to sRr STRTMALLA DHANA LAksnrr,ri, Ao6;;t:e topljct 7. Two ccs to cp FoR HOME, High court roi tre stite;iibh"g;ia. tourl 8. Two CD Copies

MMT

BM

HIGH GOURT

i i I i I 1 I i I I I i I i I

¶64

¶65

DATED i1510912025

¶66