1 APHC010381492020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 25413/2020 Between: 1. MALLAIAHGARI RAMANNA, S/O LATE LAKSHMANNAGARI PEDDA MAILARAPPA, AGED 83 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION. RESIDENT OF MOTHUKAPALLI VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. AKULA MALLAIAHGARI HANUMANTHAPPA,, S/O LATE LAKSHMANNAGARI PEDDA MAILARAPPA, AGED 83 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION. RESIDENT OF MOTHUKAPALLI VILLAGE, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK RAHAMATHULLA, S/O SHAIK ABDUL RAHEEM SAB, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS. R/O DOOR NO.18-3-19, AZAD NAGAR, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HINDUPUR-I TOWN P.S., ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. H SUDHAKARA RAO, S/O H. LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NO.303, CHALLA PRIDE, STREET NO.1, 2 HDFC BANK, CZECH COLONY. 5. NARAYANA SWAMY NEELURU, S/O M. NAGAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.3-13, PEDDAVADUGUR, VANKA VEEDHI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 6. YELLOJI RAO, S/O M.R. HANNUNJI RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.1-1-12, ABADPET, HINDUPUR TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 inaction of 3rd respondent in granting police protection to the petitioner by considering his representation dated 04.12.2020 to prevent the breach of peace by taking necessary action against the respondents 4 to 6 herein disobey the court orders such as injunction as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to give police protection to the petitioner, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 3rd respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 04.12.2020 to provide police protection forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 25413 of 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of 3rd respondent in granting police protection to the petitioner by considering his representation dated 04.12.2020 to prevent the breach of peace by taking necessary action against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein disobey the court orders such as injunction as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to give police protection to the petitioner, and pass…” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that an ad-interim injunction has been granted in favour of Petitioners vide Orders dated 20.01.2020 in I.A.No.46 of 2020 in O.S.No.25 of 2020 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District. It is further submitted that inspite of the said orders, the respondent No.4 has been disturbing their possession and enjoyment over the subject property. They have submitted a complaint to the 4th respondent dated 04.12.2020, but no action has been taken so far. As there is no alternative remedy, they have filed the present writ petition. 3. Admittedly, a civil suit has been filed by the Petitioners herein in O.S.No.25 of 2020 which is pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District. During the subsistence of the said suit, a petition in I.A.No.46 of 2020 was filed seeking temporary injunction, wherein 4 the Petitioner has obtained an order of ad-interim injunction dated 20.01.2020, even before the Respondents entered their appearance in the said suit. In support of his contention learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy vs. State of A.P., and Others1 wherein at Para Nos.16 and 17 it was held as under: “16. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of P.R.Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others held at Para No.19 that :- “A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order. 17. Therefore, the legal position is now clear that when there was a decree passed or an order at interlocutory stage, like the present one on merits, after hearing both the parties, writ Court can grant police aid by entertaining the writ petition filed to that effect for effective implementation of the said temporary injunction order.” 5. The above judgment is not helpful to the case of the Petitioner since the interim order passed therein, was on merits. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit the petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to seek the very same relief before the trial Court. 1 MNU/AP/0803/2021 5 Learned counsel would further submit that their representation is pending before the Police. 5. In that view, the writ petition is disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to recourse their remedy before the trial Court in case of violation of the order passed by the Court in O.S.No.25 of 2020. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 12.08.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.25413 of 2020 Dated.12.08.2025 UPS 29