IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34119 of 2014 BETWEEN Lalit Kumar Jalan AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of his request by the police in granting police protection and not passing any orders on his representation, dated 18.10.2014. Petitioner states that he obtained an injunction decree in O.S.No.287 of 2003 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, against respondent No.4 under judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 and the appeal preferred against the said decree by the said defendant in A.S.No.1 of 2010 was also dismissed on 01.09.2014 and that the said order has become final. It is stated that while the petitioner has taken up construction at D.No.8-1-11 at P.W.Market, Vizianagaram, respondent No.4 allegedly obstructed the construction activities. Hence, the petitioner sought police protection by approaching the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station under his representation, dated 18.10.2014. Alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions of the learned Government Pleader show that the civil suit was no doubt decreed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner filed a complaint in Vizianagaram I Town police station on 16.06.2014 for obstructing the respondents while constructing the site and the same was registered as crime No.199 of 2014. Thereafter, while this court directed investigation into crime No.199 of 2014, to be taken up and completed promptly and fairly vide orders in W.P.No.15817 of 2014 on 23.06.2014, the petitioner again made a request for police protection on 16.10.2014 by sending a request through his clerk. Respondent No.3 states that petitioner’s clerk was advised to bring the petitioner to take receipt of the complaint, but he did not do so. Thereafter, petitioner sent another request on 18.10.2014 by registered post seeking police protection.
4. Since the petitioner’s request for police protection is pending and in the absence of petitioner approaching respondent No.3, the same could not be taken up, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 together with the documents showing the civil adjudication in his favour and make appropriate request to respondent No.3. If such a request along with the necessary documents is made by the petitioner before respondent No.3, he shall take prompt action thereon in accordance with law.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 20, 2014 LMV