THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.42771 OF 2016

ORDER:

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

“…to issue an order, direction or a writ particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondent No. 1 to 6 in not granting police protection even after having a judgment and decree being OS 1056 of 2008 in favour of petitioners as illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents no. 1 to 6 to provide police protection.….”

2. Heard Ms.M.Meghna Menda, learned counsel representing Mr. Ashish Samat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 and Mr.A.S.Diwakar, learned counsel representing Mr.Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for unofficial respondents.

3. Learned counsel on record for the petitioner submits that he had given up vakalatnama a couple of years ago.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner had sought police protection. However, as there was no direction issued by the competent court or any other lawful authority, such protection was not extended. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that even prior to filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had instituted Execution Petition No. 31 of 2015 seeking arrest of the unofficial respondents and their committal to civil prison. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 22 of 2016 seeking police protection, which was subsequently withdrawn. He further submits that the said Execution Petition itself was dismissed on 16.12.2016 and that the decree passed in the underlying civil suit has not been challenged by the petitioner in a Second Appeal before this Court. In view of these facts, learned counsel contends that the petitioner’s request for police protection, without any subsisting or tenable ground, is unsustainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have perused the material placed on record.

7. The relief sought by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents/police authorities to extend police protection based on the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1056 of 2008. The question of seeking police protection in pursuance of a civil court decree, either through an interim application or directly in the writ jurisdiction, is no longer res integra.

8. This Court, in W.P. No. 8698 of 2025, has categorically held that a petitioner cannot directly invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek enforcement of a civil court decree without first taking steps for its execution under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Thus, the proper course to a decree-holder is to file an execution petition before the competent civil court, along with an appropriate application seeking police assistance for implementing the judgment and decree.

9. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner had earlier availed the remedy of execution but subsequently withdrew the application for police protection and allowed the Execution Petition to be dismissed. Thereafter, approached this Court under Article 226 amounts to circumventing the statutory procedure. Moreover, no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been demonstrated to justify invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The mere fact that the petitioner possesses a favourable decree does not, by itself, constitute sufficient ground to seek police protection through this writ petition.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s request for issuance of a direction to the police authorities for protection. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent Execution Court, if so adv