IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.41291 OF 2015 DATE: 20.04.2026 Between :

M Srikanth and another.

… Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R

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

“…To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or an appropriate direction compelling the performance of the public duty by the Respondent Nos 1 and 2 for the due and proper implementation of the Decree passed in O S No.1931/2014 by the Honble II Addl SCJ R R District at L B Nagar Dt.26.06.2015 by restraining the Respondents 3 to 7 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the House bearing Nos.198/h/26 and No.198/h/27 admeasuring in all Ac.2.00 Guntas in Survey No 68/Part situated at Madhapur Village, Hafeezpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District T S…….”

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being public authorities, are under a legal obligation to ensure proper implementation of the decree passed in O.S. No. 1931 of 2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge. The said decree restrains respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house property and the adjoining land. It is contended that despite the existence of such enforceable decree, the authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duties, thereby necessitating the filing of the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions.

2.2. Further, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O. P.S. Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad, 1982 (2) ALT 8, wherein it was held that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, possesses the power to direct police authorities to extend protection for enforcement of orders passed by civil courts. The petitioners also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.R.

Muralidharan v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501, wherein it was recognized that the High Court has wide jurisdiction to issue writs to ensure adherence to the rule of law, including enforcement of lawful orders, subject to territorial and jurisdictional limitations.

2.3. It is additionally contended that a writ of mandamus can be issued to protect the life and liberty of individuals where there exists a demonstrable threat and where public authorities, particularly the police, have failed to perform their statutory duties. The petitioners assert that there has been deliberate disobedience of the decree and that their representations to the police authorities seeking protection have not been duly considered. In such circumstances, it is argued that issuance of directions for police aid is legally justified.

2.4. Reliance is also placed on Gampala Anthaiah v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy, 2014 (2) ALD 281, wherein it was held that police protection may be granted in appropriate cases for enforcement of rights declared by a civil court. It is further submitted that the earlier Division Bench judgment in Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao, 2010 (2) ALD 41, was held to be per incuriam. The petitioners also contend that in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana, 2023 (1) ALT 765, the relevant binding precedents were not duly considered, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed by granting necessary police protection for enforcement of the injunction decree.

3. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are effectively seeking execution of a civil court decree through police intervention. It is argued that such relief is not maintainable under Article