- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30309 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 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. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DHARMAPALA GOWDA A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE-560001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CRIME), INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION JURISDICTION, BANGALORE - 560045. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560045. 7. 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. 8. MR. NGENDRA PRASAD, S/O HARINATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 1ST CROSS, LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE -560027. 9. SMT. N.ASHWINI, W/O NAGENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 1ST CROSS, LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE -560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P YASHODHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6) 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. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 6. 2. Notice to respondents No.7 to 9 is dispensed with in view of the order proposed to be passed. 3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; 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 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. c. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity." 4. Essentially, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus to the police to provide police protection to implement the ex-parte order of injunction dated 01.08.2025, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025 passed in OS No.5575 of 2025. The said order reads as under; ORDER 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. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff shall make compliance under Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC: 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. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 6. 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41359 WP No. 30309 of 2025 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would have 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. 8. 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. 9. With the above observations, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30