Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. The petitioner, a banking company under Section 5[c] of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of W.P. No. 10602 of 2015, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, and the Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad) to take necessary steps for putting them in absolute control of land admeasuring 9892.6 sq. yards in Survey No. 186 situated at Kondapur in furtherance of the acts initiated by them under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act), and followed by violation of the undertaking by the 4th respondent (the Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited-hereinafter called DCHL) in W.A. No. 679 of 2013 before this Court.

2. In its interim order, in WPMP No. 14020 of 2015 in W.P. No. 10602 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015, this Court observed that there was no order either of this Court, or of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in force which prevented the police officers from rendering assistance to the petitioner. While making it clear that they had not issued any direction, as at present, to respondents 1 to 3 to give the petitioner police assistance, this Court clarified that there was no court order preventing respondents 1 to 3 from providing police aid, to the petitioner, if they so choose.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17935 of 2015 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 6 in not providing police aid for implementation of the rule of law in discharge of their public duties, in terms of the representation dated 15.06.2015 made by the petitioner seeking necessary police protection for taking absolute control of the property i.e., land admeasuring 9892.6 sq. yards in Survey No. 186 situated at Kondapur, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. They sought a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary steps to put them in absolute control over the property at Kondapur in furtherance of the acts initiated by them under the SARFAESI Act followed by the violation of the undertaking by the 7th respondent (DCHL) in W.A. No. 679 of 2013 before this Court.

4. It is stated, in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 17935 of 2015, that the petitioner had approached respondents 1, 3 to 5 informing them that they intended to take absolute control over the property at Kondapur on 17.06.2015 at 11.00 A.M; they had, by their letter dated 15.06.2015, requested the respondent authorities to provide necessary police assistance/protection; the respondent-authorities had refused to provide protection on the pretext that there was no specific direction from the Court to the police officers to provide any such assistance while the petitioner took absolute control of the subject property; this Court, by its order in W.P.M.P. No. 14020 of 2015 in W.P. No. 10602 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015, did not direct the police to provide protection/assistance to the petitioner; when no favourable action was forthcoming from the respondent-authorities, they had proceeded to take absolute control over the property at Kondapur; however, the same was resisted by the representatives, agents, henchmen of DCHL and their employees union; due to the inaction of respondents 1 to 6, in providing necessary assistance and police protection to them, the petitioner was unable to take absolute control of the property at Kondapur; DCHL still continues to stay in the subject property by running a printing press, contrary to the directions of this Court dated 11.11.2013, and in gross violation of the undertaking given by them to vacate the premises on or before 28.02.2014 after removing all the mach