IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8774 of 2008 Between: Masjid & graveyard of Takya Moghal Fakhir Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad rep., by its President Sri Abdul Jaleel Khan. … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Raidurg, Ranga Reddy District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Shiv Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8774 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide police protection to safeguard the Wakf property belonging to the petitioner institution to the extent of Ac.38.29 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.11 and 103 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the antisocial elements and land grabbers. The petitioner in its affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, averred that its institution obtained a judgment and decree on 22.01.2008 in O.S.No.68 of 2007 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) against some of the alleged land grabbers in the locality, namely, Mohd. Amanullah Shareef and others when they tried to encroach into the said property. It further averred that it has been making representation from time to time to the respondents to provide police protection preferably a police picket on the said property with armed guards to protect the same from illegal encroachments, that on 30.03.2008 and 31.03.2008, some of the antisocial elements of the locality illegally demolished an old Mosque located in the said property and that when a Member of Parliament by name Syed Aziz Pasha inspected the site, he was manhandled by the miscreants and on the basis of the complaints, respondent No.4 registered criminal cases. However, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are not providing police protection to safeguard the property from the hands of the alleged miscreants. Heard Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one, which are indicated hereunder: 1) The petitioner has not specifically pointed out all the persons, who are allegedly interfering with its possession. He referred to the name of Mohd. Amanullah Shareef, who was defendant No.1 in the civil suit decreed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has not impleaded either the said person or any other person, who is allegedly interfering with its possession of the property in question, as parties to the writ petition and no reasons have been given for its failure to implead the said persons. Unless the persons against whom the petitioner is seeking police protection are impleaded, it is not appropriate for this Court to direct providing of any police protection, as any such order would vitally affect the interest of such persons. 2) The petitioner has an effective remedy to execute the decree passed by the Tribunal under Section 83 (7) read with (8) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioner has not given any reason whatsoever to bypass the said effective remedy and invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O.P.S. Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad and others[1] to contend that this Court has ample jurisdiction to issue direction to all the authorities including the police within the State to enforce the orders of the civil Court and maintain the rule of law. While there cannot be any dispute about the existence of such power in the High Court, the question in this writ petition relates to exercise of such a power on the facts of the present case. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain writ petitions filed bypassing the effective alternative remedies. (see Baburam v Zilla Parishad[2], Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corporation Limited[3] and Secretary, U.P. High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad and others v. H.K. Lal[4]) Since the petitioner failed to give any extraordinary reason for this Court to make a departure from this established rule, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as indicated supra. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.11633 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.04.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o. ES [1] AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 394 [2] AIR 1969 SC 556 [3] (2003) 2 SCC 107 [4] (2007) 2 SCC 216