2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 4241
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Beesa Pentaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 24939/2017
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.24939 of 2017
DATE : 29.01.2026
Between:
Beesa Pentaiah & Another
…Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana and Others
…Respondents
C.C.No.2639 of 2017
Between:
Beesa Pentaiah & Another
…Petitioners
AND
Mahender Reddy and Others
…Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.24939 of 2017
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
“…to issue Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the
nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents
1 to 6 in not providing any police protection for protecting the R10
temple and its employees as illegal and unconstitutional and
consequently direct the police authorities to arrest and prosecute the
encroachers and persons who are attacking the endowment
employees devotees provide to provide adequate police protection
##PAGE2##2
for full fledged protection of temple properties by all means including
having police and provide police protection while activities are taken
up by R10 authorities and pass such order, orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice........”
C.C.No.2639 of 2017
The Contempt Case has been instituted seeking punishment of the
respondents/contemnors for the alleged deliberate and willful
disobedience of the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by this Court in
W.P.M.P. No.30898 of 2017 in W.P. No.24939 of 2017.
Heard Mr. G. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K. S.
Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. B. N. Shailaja,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Endowments Department.
2. Since the writ petition and the contempt case are interconnected,
both matters were heard together and are being disposed of by way of
this common order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to the
inaction of Respondents 1 to 6 in failing to provide police protection to
Respondent No.10 temple and its employees, and in not arresting or
prosecuting the encroachers and persons allegedly attacking or
interfering with endowment employees and devotees, the present
petition has been filed seeking judicial intervention to compel police
##PAGE3##3
action, ensure protection of the temple, and safeguard its employees,
devotees, and properties.
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits
that, although no report or representation was made by the petitioners to
the police, this Court, by way of an interim order, directed the police
authorities to extend police protection. In compliance with the said order,
police protection was extended from 14.12.2017 to 16.12.2017.
Therefore, it is contended that the grievance of the petitioners has
already been addressed, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners
themselves did not approach the police authorities seeking such
protection. It is further contended that the allegation of disobedience is
wholly unfounded, particularly since the interim direction was in favour of
Respondent No.10, and its managing authority has not raised any
grievance alleging non-compliance. On these grounds, dismissal of both
the writ petition and the contempt case is sought.
5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. The specific grievance of the petitioners pertains to the alleged
failure of the respondent police authorities to provide police protection for
safeguarding the temple and its employees from encroachers. However,
##PAGE4##4
according to the respondents/police authorities, no specific
representation or complaint was lodged by the petitioners, and
consequently, no crime has been registered. Insofar as the extension of
police protection is concerned, although an interim order was granted by
this Court, the record clearly indicates that the petitioners did not avail
the statutory remedies available to them by approaching the competent
authority or court with concrete material demonstrating an imminent
threat necessitating police protection. Nonetheless, pursuant to the
interim