THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.15170 and 15241 of 2010 Dated 03rd August, 2010 Between: M/s Indian Telecom Infra Limited …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, the petitioner has a two-fold grievance, namely, that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken action on the complaints dated 15.04.2010 and 15.05.2010 against respondent Nos.3 and 4 who were allegedly obstructing erection of cell phone tower by the petitioner on the lands in question. At the hearing, Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 in these two writ petitions are neither neighbours nor they have any manner of right to obstruct the petitioner from erecting a cell phone tower and that when the petitioner has lodged reports, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that as the allegations in the complaints did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, respondent No.2 could not register a crime. She further submitted that as regards the alleged obstruction by respondent Nos.3 and 4 against erecting the cell tower, the same being a dispute, which is purely civil in nature, the Police cannot interfere with the same unless a Court of competent jurisdiction grants an order giving such a direction to the Police. I find force in the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. As regards the alleged offence, para 3 of the report dated 15.04.2010 contains allegation that the persons named therein abused the petitioner’s representative in filthy language and manhandled him by threatening him not to come again to the colony. These allegations prima facie do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. However, this Court does not intend to express conclusive opinion on this aspect as the petitioner is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with an appropriate complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. and in such an event, the learned Magistrate shall examine these allegations and form his own opinion. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that the Police have not been granting protection to enable it to erect the cell tower, the duty of the Police is to maintain law and order and to investigate the offences. It is no part of duty of the Police to grant protection to the private persons in connection with civil disputes. If respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in these writ petitions have been unduly interfering with the right of the petitioner to erect cell phone, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court and obtain appropriate relief. On such relief being granted by the civil Court, the petitioner is entitled to enforce such an order against respondent Nos.3 and 4 or the persons claiming through them by following due process of law. Subject to the above observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of these writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.19112 of 2010 in W.P.No.15170 of 2010 and W.P.M.P.No.19192 of 2010 in W.P.No.15241 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd August, 2010 GHN