IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24558 of 2007 Between: Dadi Kasi Venkata Narasimham … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. B. Varalakshmi for Sri K.L.N. Swamy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 3&4: Ms. Susheela Mayuri for Sri Sudershan Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24558 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in providing protection to the petitioner’s life and property, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner made several allegations against respondent Nos.3 to 6 with whom he has civil disputes. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent Nos.3 to 6 have been persistently trying to interfere with his possession of the property in dispute and threatening to cause physical harm to him, respondent No.2 has not been taking any action to protect his life and property. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that on the petitioner approaching him, he registered as many as 5 cases, namely, Crime Nos.53 of 2004, 26 of 2005 (C.C.No.417 of 2005), 78 of 2005, 111 of 2005 (C.C.No.243 of 2006) and 4 of 2006 (C.C.No.530 of 2006). It is further stated that two out of the said five cases were referred either as civil in nature or false and in other cases, either charge sheets have been filed or they were under investigation. It is further stated that as and when the petitioner approached the concerned police station, necessary action was taken by registering the complaints and filing the reports before the Court concerned and that the police are always ready and willing to give protection, if the petitioner gets any order from the competent civil Court. Ms. Suseela, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3 and 4, submitted that the petitioner has already filed I.A.No.344 of 2005 in O.S.No.278 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, seeking police protection in respect of his properties and that the said application is still pending. In my opinion, there is no justification for the petitioner to allege inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in the face of registration of as many as 5 criminal cases. With regard to the protection claimed by the petitioner, as submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 that his application for granting police aid is pending before the civil Court. The petitioner is therefore entitled to pursue the said application and in the event of his getting an order from the civil Court, he is entitled to approach respondent No.2, who assured in his counter affidavit that in such an event he will afford necessary protection. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31970 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.06.2010. ES