1. Petitioner, a handling and transportation contractor, was awarded with handling and transportation contract of food grains by the fifth respondent – A.P. State Warehousing for a period of two years in respect of Dawarapudi (Investors Godown) at Dawarapudi, East Godavari District.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a group of 50 local people are not allowing the petitioner to take up the said contract work with the help of its labourers and are making a demand that the entire contract work should be entrusted to the local people only and on account of the illegal and unlawful demand and criminal activity, the handling and transportation at the said godown by the petitioner is seriously affected. On account of the said obstruction to the workers of the petitioner from attending to the work on behalf of the fifth respondent undertaking, the petitioner requested for police protection under representation dated 03.11.2011 by personally apprising respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent was also informed of the said obstruction and one of the investors under their letter dated 16.11.2011 has been in turn pressurizing the petitioner to sort out the said problem immediately. As there was no action on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, petitioner filed the present writ petition to enforce the duties of respondents 1 to 4 to maintain law and order and also to protect petitioner’s labour in order to carry out the operations at the godown.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the duties of Police Officers, as envisaged under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859 (for short ‘the Act’) and submits that the unauthorized obstruction to the lawful work of the petitioner on behalf of the fifth respondent and failure of respondents 1 to 4 in discharging their legal duty of protection, affects the petitioner’s right to carry on lawful business. Learned senior counsel points out that, on the one hand, petitioner is not allowed to carry on its lawful work at the instance of the unauthorized and illegal acts of local people and the fifth respondent, on the other hand, is holding petitioner responsible for consequences arising out of financial losses.

4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that on enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner and the fifth respondent have recently entered into an agreement but as there is a separate registered union existing at the said godown maintained by the fifth respondent, the members of the said union, who are depending on working at the said godown, have already filed a case through the union members against the authorities of the fifth respondent before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, East Godavari seeking stocking charges and other benefits. The first respondent, therefore, stated that there is a civil dispute regarding payment of stocking charges and the same being pending with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, petitioner’s representation was disposed of on 10.12.2011 by stating that providing of police protection was found to be improper. A letter of 10.12.2011 is also appended to the counter, which reiterates the said stand, specifically stating that the Office of the Superintendent of Police is unable to provide police protection as that will lead to severe law and order problem.

5. In the light of these averments, it is appropriate to notice Section 21 of the Act, which is extracted hereunder:

21. Duties of Police-Officers: - Every police office shall, for all purposes in the Act contained, be considered to be always on duty and shall have the powers of a Police Officer in every part of the General Police District. It shall be his duty to use his best endeavours ability to prevent all crimes, offences and public nuisances; to preserve the peace; to apprehend disorderly and suspicious characters; to detect and bring offenders to justice; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting