THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17589 OF 2010 DATED 21ST JULY, 2010 BETWEEN Metta Padmavathi … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17589 OF 2010 O R D E R The petitioner assails the action of the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, in interfering with her possession over the land in Plot No.221 situated in Survey No.100/5, P.N.Colony, Fazulbegpeta Village in Srikakulam Sub-Division. Admittedly, the interference by the Police stems from the order passed by the District Judge, Srikakulam, granting Police Aid to the second respondent herein/decree holder in O.S.No.6 of 2009. The said suit filed by the second respondent was decreed on 07.09.2009 against the third and fourth respondents herein. The petitioner is not a party to the said suit but she claims title to the subject property through the very same vendor from whom the second respondent/decree holder claims title. Viewed thus, as the interference by the Police stems from an order passed by the competent Civil Court, the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the said Court by way of an appropriate application and seek protection of her rights, if any. Reference made to SURYA DEV RAI v. RAM CHANDER RAI[1] is misconceived as the Supreme Court held therein that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against the orders and proceedings of a judicial Court subordinate to the High Court. Presently, the challenge is not to the order passed by the competent Civil Court but to the consequential action of the Police basing on such order. Therefore the aforestated Judgment is of no avail to the petitioner. Similarly, the reliance on STATE OF TRIPURA v. MANORANJAN CHAKRABORTY[2] is equally misplaced. The Supreme Court held therein that gross injustice would justify interference notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that such interference would prevent a high-handed or palpably illegal order from being passed. The interference sought by the petitioner by way of this writ petition is not with any order passed by the Court below but with the consequential action of the Police in implementing such order. Unless the petitioner assails the correctness of such order, the consequential action cannot be subjected to judicial review. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is free to approach the Civil Court by way of an appropriate application and seek protection of her rights, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST JULY, 2010. Note: Issue cc tomorrow. B/O PGS / VGSR [1] (2003) 6 SCC 675 [2] (2001) 10 SCC 740