IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24918 of 2009 Between: Syed Mohd. Iqbal Hashmi ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Station House Officer, Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohd.Moin Ahmed Quadri Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 4: --- Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri P.Krishna Prakash The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1, in taking steps to protect the person and property of the petitioner from respondent Nos.2 to 4, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner averred that in respect of property, bearing Municipal No.19-3-294/70, respondent No.2 filed a suit, in the year 2003, in the Court of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction, and that the same was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 29-06-2009. It is further stated that respondent No.2, being a retired Police Constable, along with two other persons has threatened the petitioner to kill him and that thereupon, the petitioner made a representation on 05-10-2009 and also a complaint on 20-10-2009 before respondent No.1 for grant of Police Aid. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such representation and complaint, respondent No.1 has not taken any action so far. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. However, at the hearing, Sri P.Krishna Prakash, learned Counsel representing respondent No.3, submitted that respondent No.3 has purchased the abovementioned property from respondent No.2 and that thereafter, when the petitioner started interfering with his possession, respondent No.3 filed OS.No.747 of 2008, for perpetual injunction, and also IA.No.310 of 2008 (for short ‘the IA’), for temporary injunction, in the Court of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He filed a copy of order, dated 10th June, 2008 passed in the IA. A perusal of the abovesaid order shows that the civil Court granted temporary injunction against the petitioner, who is the sole defendant in the suit and respondent in the IA. The fact that the said order was passed by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot claim relief of a direction to respondent No.1 to give protection to his property. As regards the complaint, said to have been made by the petitioner, that respondent No.2 threatened to kill him, respondent No.1 is directed to consider same, if the same has been received by him, and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.32444 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th March, 2010 lur