JUDGMENT :

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani R. Tripathi appearing for the respondent – State waive service of notice of Rule.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to Admit / Allow this Petition;

B. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus and issue direction upon the concerned Respondent Authority to take Necessary Steps in connection with Written Complaint dated 21.07.2026 filed by the Present Petitioner before the Respondent No. 2 (at ANNEXURE "B").

C. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Essentially, by way of this petition, petitioner intended to register the FIR in regards to Annexure-B.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni appearing for the petitioner and learned APP Ms. Dhwani R.Tripathi appearing for the respondent – State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni appearing for the petitioner submits that the concerned police station as well as the Police Commissioner, Surat, has been given a written complaint alleging the various allegations against the persons mentioned therein, but the concerned police station and the Police Commissioner are not responding to the written complaint submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction and direct the respondent/s to register the FIR in accordance with the law.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni appearing for the petitioner further submits that the entire issue belongs to taking up the illegal possession of the common plot of the Gayatri Nagar Society in Surat and since it was alleged against the previous President of the society that he being influential person, has taken over the illegal possession of the common plot of the the Gayatri Nagar Society, the concerned Police authority was required to examine the issue in its true and correct perspective and to register the FIR as information of the cognizable offence is unraveled in the written complaint. He would further submit that, in the case on hand, police authority, to whom, written complaint has been lodged, did not bother to respond the same or did not communicate outward of the written complaint.

4.2 Mainly upon above submission, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted to pass the necessary order in regards to the prayer made in the petition.

5. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Dhwani R. Tripathi appearing for the respondent – State submitted that it would not be open for the petitioner to approach the High Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of the FIR, in absence of any special circumstances. It is further submitted that therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the Police, learned APP submitted that the petitioner has to consume regular remedy to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court for ventilating his grievance.

5.1 In support of her submission, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors., reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 as well as in the recent judgment in the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2026 (2) GLR 1132.

5.2 Mainly upon above submissions, learned APP submitted to dismiss this petition.

6. Regard being had to the rival submissions of the learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, let me observe that the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in this petition, is completely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra). Para 5 to7 thereof are relevant, which reads as under:-

“5. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 907 [also cited as (2008) 2 SCC 409], that if a person ha