THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.17443 OF 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent police in not providing police protection to the petitioner property to an extent of Ac.30 gts in Sy.No.127 to 131, partat Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District basing on the Docket Order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, pursuant to the complaint dated 22.05.2017 of the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents police to provide protection to the petitioner lands in the interest of justice and pass such other order….”

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.

4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the docket order relied upon by the petitioner does not contain any specific direction to the police authorities to extend protection in relation to the complaint dated 22.05.2017. In the absence of instructions from the higher authorities, the assistance sought by the petitioner was not rendered. Consequently, the contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition remains unsubstantiated, and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and carefully examined the material available on record.

6. The petitioner has sought police protection on the basis of the interim injunction granted in I.A. No.1966 of 2014 in O.S. No.956 of 2014, pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

7. A perusal of the record makes it evident that though an interim injunction was granted against respondents No.1 to 5, no direction was issued by the Civil Court to the police authorities to provide assistance or protection. It is well settled that when an injunction order is violated, the appropriate remedy lies under Order XXXIX Rules 2A and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The aggrieved party is required to bring the alleged violation to the notice of the Court concerned, which may initiate appropriate proceedings or grant ancillary directions, including police aid, to secure compliance.

8. In the present case, the petitioner, without invoking or exhausting the remedies available under the CPC, approached the police directly for protection. Such a course of action is per se unsustainable in law.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, (2010) 10 SCC 141, has reiterated that when specific remedies are provided under the CPC, parties must first approach the Civil Court for enforcement of its orders rather than seeking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309, it was emphasized that police protection in civil disputes can only be granted pursuant to a judicial order directing such protection.

10. Thus, in the absence of any such direction from the Civil Court, and considering that the matter remains within the seisin of that Court, the inaction of the police authorities cannot be faulted. This Court has, on earlier occasions, also held that a petition seeking enforcement of an interim or final decree, along with police assistance, must be pursued before the Executing Court under Section 151 CPC, and that without exhausting this remedy, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the petitioner’s prayer is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained in law. Acc