IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.10265 OF 2019

DATE : 07.01.2026

Between:

Muktha Rajeshwar and Others

…Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana and Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking any action against the respondent No.5 and not providing the police protection on the representation dated 03.05.2019 made by the petitioners in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.117/2015 dated 22.11.2018 of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Article, 19,21 of Constitution of India and in the

interest of justice…..”

2. None for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contends that no specific order or direction has been issued by any competent Civil Court requiring the respondent police authorities to extend

protection to the petitioners. In the absence of such a judicial mandate, it is submitted that the police authorities could not have acted unilaterally to afford protection or render assistance solely on the basis of the petitioners’ representation dated 03.05.2019. It is further argued that if the petitioners were aggrieved, the proper course would have been to invoke the appropriate statutory remedies before the competent forum. He emphasizes that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to compel police authorities to interfere in or enforce matters pertaining to civil disputes unless such enforcement is expressly directed by a competent court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed in limine.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record.

6. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent police authorities have failed to extend protection pursuant to their representation, despite the dismissal of the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the unofficial respondent against them, vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2018 in O.S. No.117 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial. The said decree, it is asserted, confirmed the petitioners’ possession over the disputed property. Notwithstanding such dismissal, the unofficial respondent is alleged to have continued to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, and the police have allegedly remained inactive, thereby depriving the petitioners of the benefit of the civil court’s findings.

7. The explanation offered by the respondent police that in the absence of a specific order or direction from the competent Civil Court, they are not empowered to provide police protection appears legally sound and consistent with settled principles of law. It is well established that the role of the police in civil disputes is limited. Their intervention, if any, must be predicated upon a judicial directive issued by the competent court. Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a Civil Court is vested with inherent powers to issue necessary directions, including police aid, to secure compliance with its orders or decrees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar [(2006) 4 SCC 501], and several subsequent judgments, has reiterated that the police cannot unilaterally enforce private civil rights absent a judicial order. Therefore, unless the petitioners approach the Civil Court seeking police aid and the police cannot act independently. Furthermore, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, without exhausting efficacious alternative remedies, is legally impermissibl