APHC010217242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11780/2026 Between: 1. GURRAM BHARATHAMMA, W/O. RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. SRI RAM NAGAR, RAJIV NAGAR, TIRUPATHI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517277. 2. NAGIRIMADUGUSARADAMMA,, W/O. BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.PATHAKOTAPALLE, H/O. NAGIRIMADUGU, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517277. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AT MADANAPALLE, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517325. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAYACHOTI DIVISION, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOORDISTRICT - 516269. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIKIHCIRCLE, KALIKIRI, KALIKIRI MANDAL,ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517234. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALIKIRI POLICE STATION, KALIKIRI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517234. 2 6. P SUBBARAMAIAH, S/O. NAGULAIAH, AGED 74 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.AMARANATHA REDDY COLONY, KALIKIRI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517234. 7. P VENKATA MURAGAIAH, S/O. SUBBARAMAIAH AGED 47 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.AMARANATHA REDDY COLONY, KALIKIRI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517234. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Respondents 2 to 5 in not providing police protection pursuant to the petitioners representation dated 31.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners in respect of suit said property and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not providing police protection to the Petitioners despite they have submitted representation dated 31.12.2025. He further submits that the Petitioner got a decree in O.S.No.122/2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad and Execution Petition was also filed seeking arrest of the unofficial respondents. 3 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on oral instructions, submits that if appropriate orders are passed, the police would follow them scrupulously. 5. Indeed, Petitioners got a decree in O.S.No.122/2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad and they have filed Execution Petition also, in that an application was filed seeking arrest of the unofficial Respondents. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Vanaparthi Subramanyamv.State of A.P1 at paragraph No.11 held as under: “11. It is well settled law that when a permanent injunction decree was passed by the competent civil Court, the plaintiff in the said suit is entitled for grant of police aid either by an order passed by the Court which passed the said decree or by an order passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The law in this regard is not res integra and the same has been dealt with in the case of Rai Naramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh.,2 wherein this Court held at para 7 as follows: “7. It is now well settled law that only when there is a decree for permanent injunction and only when there is an order of temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is made absolute after hearing both the parties, then only the Courts usually either the civil Court or the Writ Court, would grant police aid for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decree or a temporary injunction order which is passed on merits. But when the ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted without hearing the respondents and when the same is not made absolute granting a temporary injunction order, till the disposal of the suit, on merits, the Courts will not usually order for grant of police aid for implementation of the ex parte ad-interim injunction order. Since it is not an order on merits after hearing both the parties, the Courts would be very slow in granting police aid, till the possession and rights of the parties are determined after enquiry based on evidence.”.” 7. Thus, the law is clear that police aid will ordinarily be granted only when there is a decree of permanent injunction or a temporary injunction made absolute after hearing both parties, but not for an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted without hearing the Respondents, since such orders are not 1W.P.No.20555/2022 22021(1) ALT 426 4 on merits and Courts are cautious until rights and possession are determined through proper enquiry. 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Police to provide necessary police protection to the Petitioners based on the representation dated 31.12.2025 in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.04.2026 VTS