IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17840 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Ravi Chandra Reddy S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o.4-36, Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 P. Rajasekhar Reddy S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o.4-36, Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 P. Sudhakar S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o.4-36, Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 P. Muralidhar Reddy S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o.4-36, Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, Ramasamudram Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Punganur, Chittoor District. 3 P. Krishna Reddy S/o. Muni Rami Reddy R/o. Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 P. Sankar Reddy S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o. Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 P. Satyanarayana Reddy S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o. Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 P. Muni Rami Reddy S/o. P. Krishna Reddy R/o. Kothuru Village, H/o. Moogawadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.S.BHATT Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 6: -------- The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioners, who are decree holders in O.S.No.288 of 1983 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Punganur, have felt aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in providing Police Aid to protect their property in terms of the said decree. In the view I am proposing to take in this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to serve notices on respondent Nos.3 to 6. The petitioners obtained decree in the above- mentioned suit for injunction restraining the defendants therein, who include respondent No.3 herein, from interfereing with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule land. The said decree was passed on 03-08-1993. The petitioners claim to have approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 with representations, made on 27-07-2008 and 03-08-2008, requesting for Police Aid against respondent Nos.3 to 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not yet taken any action thereon. On 01-06-2009, this Court adjourned the case at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to produce proof of filing of representations, in view of the stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the representations, as claimed to have been made by the petitioners, were not received by either of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Today, the learned Counsel for the petitioners sought further time to produce such proof. In my view, it is not necessary to adjourn the case for this purpose because the petitioners shall be free to file fresh representation before respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with the supporting material showing that they have obtained a decree against respondent Nos.3 to 6. If such representation is made, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same, and if they are satisfied that the competent Civil Court passed a decree in their favour, and if there is evidence of alleged interference contrary to the terms of the decree, they shall consider taking action against the defendants therein or any persons claiming through them in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.23215 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 15th June, 2009 lur