Telangana High Court
Butti Devendramma vs State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.355 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
24.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.13455 of 2022.
The facts reflected in the record reveal that the writ
petition was preferred by the present appellants for issuance of
an appropriate writ, order or direction to the State and the
police authorities to safeguard their possession over the land
admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas in Survey No.786/D and Ac.0.38
guntas in Survey No.786/C situated at Vadlur-Begumpet
Revenue Village, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District. The
appellants/writ petitioners have stated before the learned Single
Judge that a civil suit was preferred by them i.e., O.S.No.113 of
2020, the trial Court on 01.10.2020 has granted injunction
initially ex parte and later on it was extended in the presence of
both the parties on 05.01.2021. It was further stated by the
appellants/writ petitioners that in spite of grant of injunction,
police protection has not been provided to them. The learned
Single Judge, by taking into account an order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.38 of 2022, has
2
permitted the appellants/writ petitioners to file an appropriate
application before the trial Court for grant of police protection.
This Court has carefully gone through the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and the same reveals that he had
granted a liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to approach
the trial Court where the civil suit is pending.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the
attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan vs.
Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar1 and his contention is
that in case there is a judgment and decree or an order of the
Civil Court, police protection can be granted and the learned
Single Judge should have granted police protection in the case
of the appellants/writ petitioners also.
Paragraph Nos.14 and 17 of the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan (supra)
are reproduced as under:-
"14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained which is set aside accordingly. However, in the event the
first respondent feels that he as a person should receive protection to
his life, he may make an appropriate representation to the
Superintendent of Police who after causing an inquiry made in this
(2006) 4 SCC 501
behalf may pass an appropriate order as is permissible in law. The
appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations.
17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner,
cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one
thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a
plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of
injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately
flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying
for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed
protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with
jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of
mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right
which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an
adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit.
It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed
possession of a property without first establishing his possession in
an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of
this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain
effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in
appropriate situations."
Paragraph 17 makes it very clear that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that a writ petition, under the guise of
seeking writ of mandamus directing police authorities to give
police protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum
for adjudicating on civil rights. It has also been held that in
case a party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction
passed in favour of the petitioner and in spite of the fact that
the petitioner has applied for grant of police protection, the
police authorities are not giving police protection to him in
terms of the decree or order passed by the Civil Court, he can
file a writ of mandamus.
In the present case, no document has been brought to the
notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the
appellants/writ petitioners to the effect that the appellants/writ
petitioners have applied for grant of police protection before the
trial Court. They have straight away rushed to this Court
without making any application before the trial Court and the
learned Single Judge was certainly justified in dismissing the
writ petition with a liberty to submit appropriate application
before the trial Court where the civil suit is pending. This Court
also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
07.06.2022
JSU
