Sri T. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellants;
Department, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.V. Ramana,
2. This Intra-Court appeal takes exception to an
Further, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Dammapeta Police Station, is directed to give Police
protection to the vacate petitioner-respondent No.3,
in compliance of the order dated 19.09.2022 passed
by this Court in C.R.P.No.1827 of 2022."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that before
the writ Court, the contentions raised by the present appellants
have not been considered in the writ petition filed by the present
appellants. Relief has been granted to the unofficial respondent
No.3. By placing reliance on the Rules 29 and 30 of Andhra
Pradesh Agency Rules 1924, it is submitted that a statutory
procedure is prescribed for taking action for the purpose of
Police protection etc.,. Those provisions have not been fulfilled.
He informed that before the writ Court, the notice dated
28.10.2024 (page No.43) was subject matter of challenge. The
operative portion of the said notice reads thus:
"The Hon'ble High Court had granted police
protection, vide orders in C.R.P.No.1827 of 2022
dated 19.09.2022. Hence, you are directed to hand
over the possession within 2 days to Dhanekula
Venkata Laxminarasamma, failing which, the
further action will be taken."
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
parties fairly submitted that earlier, the unofficial respondent
No.3 filed C.R.P.No.1827 of 2022 which was decided on
19.09.2022 by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the said
order attained finality. Relevant portion of the said order reads
thus:
"17. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is
allowed setting aside the order dated 22.04.2022 passed
in I.A.No.181 of 2016 in I.A.No.281 of 2014 in O.S.No.385
of 2014 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special
Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at
Bhadrachalam. The Station House Officer, Dammapet
Police Station, Dammapet Mandal, Bhadradri
Kothagudem District, is directed to provide police
protection to the petitioner pending disposal of the suit
O.S.No.385 of 2014.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed."
5. The order passed in aforesaid C.R.P. was unsuccessfully
challenged by the present appellants before the Supreme Court
in SLP(C) No.17262 of 2022 which was decided on 30.09.2022.
The Supreme Court granted liberty to the parties to apprise the
higher Police authorities, if the Police are using the order
contrary to law. However, the writ appellants chose to file the
writ petition against the aforesaid notice. Since the order
passed in C.R.P. was not interfered with by the Supreme Court
and it was not pointed out to us that petitioner preferred
representation to the higher Police authorities about the illegality
committed by the police officials despite liberty being granted by
the Supreme Court, no interference is warranted. Even
otherwise, the order impugned is an interlocutory order and the
main matter is still pending. If at all, the appellants are
aggrieved by the said interlocutory order, they may file
appropriate application before the learned Single Judge seeking
modification/correction of said order. We find no reason to
interfere with this Writ Appeal.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 24.03.2025
Myk/Tsr
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Date: 24.03.2025
myk/tsr
