IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11028 of 2008 Date: 25th October, 2010 Between: Syed Ibrahim Quadri .. Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11028 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking appropriate steps and providing protection to the person and property admeasuring Ac.16-16 guntas in Sy.No.139 of Saidabad village belonging to the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to provide necessary police protection for due implementation of the order dated 19.10.2005 passed in S.L.P. (Civil) C.C.No.9355 and 9356 of 2005. It appears, there were some disputes pending between petitioner and unofficial respondents. They have filed individual suits and the same were pending as of today. In the suit filed by the respondents, injunction was granted and when the matter was carried in revision before this Court, the said revision was dismissed. Further, aggrieved thereby, petitioner carried the matter before the Supreme Court in C.C.No.9355 and 9356 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 19.10.2005, which reads as under: “As parties have agreed that pending the two suits bearing O.S.No.4330 of 2000 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad and O.S.No.6981 of 2002 in the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad, they shall maintain status quo, as of today, we thus see no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed”. However, the learned counsel for petitioner states that in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court, petitioner is entitled for police protection. I am afraid. I cannot agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner. A perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court, it is clear that the S.L.P. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and therefore, the question of providing police protection to the lands of the petitioner does not arise. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents stated that in view of injunction order in favour of respondents, they have also filed application for police protection and the same was ordered and in fact Police aid was provided. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.10.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11028 of 2008 25.10.2010