THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17383 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in taking appropriate action to book the culprits involved in the offence complained of by the petitioner in its complaint dated 19.05.2011 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company hitherto running a marigold processing unit near Hindupur. In May, 2009 a decision was taken to close down the unit. It is the petitioner’s case that all the dues of the workmen were settled; thereafter the plant and machinery in the factory premises was sought to be dismantled; while dismantling, a few workers had gathered at the factory premises, had illegally trespassed therein and, without any provocation, had started destroying the machinery; all efforts were made by the managerial staff but to no avail; thereafter the petitioner gave a complaint on 12.04.2011 to the Station House Officer Lepakshi Police Station seeking their assistance and protection, and to take action against the ex-employees; and, though the complaint was received, no action was taken by the second respondent under pressure from the ex-workers and local leaders. The petitioner, thereafter, filed O.S.No.205 of 2009 before the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur seeking perpetual injunction against the third respondent and other workers. I.A.No.1144 of 2009 was filed therein seeking ad-interim injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18113 of 2009 and this Court had dismissed the said Writ Petition with the observation that the petitioner was at liberty to file a private complaint. Thereafter, the said suit was disposed of by judgment dated 26.11.2009 restraining the third respondent from indulging in any illegal activities near the factory premises. The petitioner would assert that the said order has attained finality. Sri V. Hari Haran, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in Sangu Brahman and others v. Station House Officer, Garidepalli P.S., Nalgonda Dist. and others (2006 (2) ALT 322) in support of his submission that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, had ample jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to all offices including the police to enforce orders of the Civil Court. Learned Counsel would assert that, in view of the judgment aforementioned, the relief sought for by the petitioner should be granted and respondents 1 and 2 be directed to provide police protection. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is stated that, this Court, by its order in W.P.No.18113 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009, had given liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.); once again the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition seeking the same relief; the petitioner had submitted a petition on 19.05.2011 seeking police aid to enable them to carry out dismantling work, to vacate the premises, and to handover possession of the property; the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is purely civil in nature; and respondents 1 and 2 were, needlessly, dragged into such a civil dispute. Earlier when the petitioner had sought a similar direction to respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action, and in not booking the culprits involved in the complaint given by it, this Court, by its order in W.P.No.18113 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009, had dismissed the Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Criminal Court, and file a private complaint under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. It is no doubt true that the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 17.09.2009 was during the pendency of the suit; and the suit has since been decreed. That, however, makes little difference in as much as the order of this Court enabled the petitioner herein to approach the competent Criminal Court, and file a private complaint under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The writ affidavit is silent as to whether any such private complaint, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner herein or not. It is wholly impermissible for this Court to sit in judgment over an order passed by a co-ordinate bench. The High Court cannot issue a writ, to another High Court, nor can one Bench of a High Court issue a writ to a different bench of the same High Court (Roopa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra : AIR 2002 SC 1771; Madupu Harinarayana @ Haribabu v. 1st Additional District Judge, Kadapa and others : 2011 (2) ALT 405 (D.B.)). As the earlier order of this Court required the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a private complaint under the provisions of Cr.P.C., which remedy the petitioner has not availed, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J August 29, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17383 OF 2011 August 29, 2011 MD