SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top