Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19392
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Smt.D.Anitha W/o. D.Ramesh OccHouse wife – Appellant
Versus
.The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad Gachibowli Hyderabad. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17628 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Srinivas
Writ petitions dismissed as infructuous when prior protective measures are implemented and cases settled.
Headnote:This Writ Petition under Article 226 seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against respondents for inaction in implementing prior orders concerning police protection for the petitioner’s property. Notably, police protection had already been provided, and a settlement reached in a criminal case dismissed the writ as infructuous. Key issues included the adequacy of prior orders and subsequent actions taken. The result affirmed dismissal for lack of remaining claims.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inaction of respondents (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. response from government pleader (Para 2) |
| 3. court's considerations (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. judgment outcome (Para 7) |
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in implementing the Orders passed in I.A. No. 422/2015 in I.A. No. 360/2015 in O.S. No. 202/2015 dt. 21/12/2015 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District at Miyapur to protect said orders towards petitioner’s residential property bearing H.No. 4-32-727 in Plot No. B-849 at Phase-I, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District, is illegal, unethical, capricious with ulterior motives and violation of petitioner’s rights under Articles 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution and pass orders accordingly in the interest of justice.”
2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that this Court, by interim order dated 15.06.2017, directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 10.12.2015 and 03.04.2016, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. He further submits that, pursuant to the said directions, the respondents/police authorities communicated the decision to the petitioner and extended police protection on 16.08.2017. On the same day, Crime No. 625 of 2017 was registered against the unofficial respondents. It is further submitted that, after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file as Calendar Case No. 1091 of 2017 on the file of the learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Subsequently, as the parties entered into a settlement before the Lok Adalat on 10.07.2021, the offences were formally compounded by the trial Court. Hence, it is submitted that nothing further survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.
4. I have perused the material available on record.
5. The petitioner has sought a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to implement the interlocutory order passed in I.A. No. 422 of 2015 in I.A. No. 360 of 2015 in O.S. No. 202 of 2015, by which police protection was ordered. The developments reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home clearly indicate that police protection was in fact provided and that a criminal case was registered, which has since been amicably settled between the parties before the Lok Adalat.
6. In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that nothing further remains for adjudication in this writ petition.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
