Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. Petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), is a Central Government Undertaking and during the course of its business, it has acquired the premises in question. It has also obtained appropriate protective orders from the competent civil Court in the nature of injunction. However, alleging that there was unlawful interference by respondents 3 to 7, HPCL filed a complaint dated 12.03.2014 before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad; the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone as well as the Station House Officer, Police Station Chilakalaguda. Alleging inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2, which includes the Station House Officer concerned. The present writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to compel respondents 1 and 2 to perform their public duty. The writ petition is contested by respondents 3 to 7.

2. Hence, it is necessary to set out few relevant facts, as under:

(a) It is stated that respondent No. 7 acquired leasehold rights over premises bearing Municipal No. 6-1-118/A/1, A/1/1 and A/1/2 admeasuring 844.59 sq. yards at Padmaraonagar, Zamistanpur, Secunderabad under registered lease deeds bearing document Nos.358, 359, 360 and 361 of 2013, all of which were registered on 21.02.2013 and were executed by respondents 3 to 6. The said leasehold rights are stated to subsist till 28.02.2043. Under clause 1(e), setting out lessees covenants, it was provided as follows:

(e) To Sub-lease the site to HPCL for development related to subject matter of business only by registering a separate lease agreement.

Under clause 2 dealing with the covenants of lessor, clause (e) provided as follows:

(e) The Lessor has no objection for sub-leasing the Demised Premises only to HPCL as mentioned in Clause 1(e).

Further, the agreed clause under 3(a) of the lease deed provided as follows:

(a) The lessee is permitted by the Lessor to utilize the demised premises for the lawful construction of HPCL Retail Outlet and to carry on Petroleum products trade and to enter into sub-leases with HPCL authorities within the leased period of this lease deed.

(b) Pursuant to the aforesaid specific power to sub-lease, respondent No. 7 executed sub-lease deed being document No. 556/2013 dated 28.02.2013 in favour of the HPCL. HPCL claims that they were put in possession pursuant to the said sub-lease with the knowledge and consent of respondents 3 to 6 and it is further alleged that respondent No. 5 is also a witness to the said sub-lease deed. HPCL, therefore, claims, under the aforesaid lease commencing from 01.04.2013 till 28.02.2043, that they are entitled to use and enjoy the possession of the aforesaid premises. HPCL further states that after the execution of sub-lease deed, it had entrusted the developmental work to one of its contractors, who erected sheds and barricaded the property with a view to protect from third parties.

(c) While so, respondents 3 to 6 started interfering with the development activities of HPCL and even filed a suit O.S. No. 438 of 2013 before the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad and obtained ex parte interim injunction vide I.A. No. 1020 of 2013 and ultimately, the application in I.A. No. 1020 of 2013 was dismissed on 11.10.2013. HPCL also lodged a police complaint dated 04.10.2013. However, as the respondent police did not extend any assistance, respondents 3 to 6 continued to prevent the contractor of HPCL from developing the property and since the interference continued, HPCL filed O.S. No. 465 of 2013 before the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No. 1138 of 2013 on 23.10.2013. HPCL also sought orders for grant of police aid to enforce the interim injunction in their favour and at that stage, the learned trial Judge heard the injunction application finally and made the injunction absolute on 21.02.2014. HPCL states that, thereafter, their request for police protection dated 12.03.2014 also produced no response. Hence, HPCL moved th