IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13641 of 2008 Between: Fishermen Co-operative Society, Utukuru Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District, rep. by its President, Koppala Anjaiah, S/o. Atchaiah, R/o. Utukuru Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Nuzividu, Krishna District. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gampalagudem Police Station, Krishna District. 4 The Asst. Director of Fisheries, Poranki, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 The Fisheries Development Officer, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing police protection to the members of fishermen Co-operative Society, Utukur, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District for enabling us to catch the fish in Nalla Tank, Konijarla Village, Gampalagudem mandal, Krishna District as bad, arbitrary and contrary to all canons of law apart from direction of the 3rd respondent dated 05.06.2008 in the interest of justice and fair paly and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13641 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner has plurality of grievances. On 22-06-2008 the petitioner-society lodged a complaint with the third respondent alleging that on 22-06-2008 when the members of the petitioner society went to the Kanijarla (Nalla Tank) for catching fish, the villagers obstructed the fishing activities of the members of the petitioner-society, attacked and disabled the catching of fish apart from abusing and warning of dire consequences. The third respondent has not registered this complaint is one of the grievances. In respect of this grievance, the petitioner has an adequate statutory remedy by way of filing private complaint under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Another grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent-- police have not provided police protection to the members of the petitioner-society for enabling them to peaceably catch the fish in Kanijarla ( Nalla Tank) for which the petitioner--society has a current lease granted by the Fisheries Department. This Court is unable to assess the exclusive right of the petitioner for police protection for the normal commercial operations of catching fish. It is no doubt true that in abstract principle the State is required to provide sufficient protection to enable every citizen to peaceably pursue legitimate and lawful activities and from any obstruction, but in practice enforcement of such an abstract obligation by the State involves availability of sufficient members of the police force to extend police protection for every lawful and legitimate activity of a citizen. It does not appear that the current police strength in the State is adequate to provide such measure of protection for every ordinary activity of a citizen. At any rate a Mandamus directing the third respondent to provide police protection to the members of the petitioner’s--society cannot issue in the absence of any admission or agreement by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as to the availability of sufficient force. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Home states that as the third respondent does not have sufficient information as to the current leasehold right of the petitioner’s--society the third respondent is not in a position to consider the representation of the petitioner for police assistance and as and when such information is provided, the petitioner’s request for police aid would be considered. In the light of the above submission on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with such documents as are considered appropriate to enable appropriate consideration of the petitioner’s request by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 02-07-2008 Pvks/*