IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15224 of 2008 Between: A. Sreesailam Yadav S/o A. Balaiah yadav H. No. 8-3-230/#/1 Venkatagiri, Yousufguda Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hydeabad. 2 The Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hydeabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 The Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Sudhakar Rao S/o Not Known R/o H. No. 2-2-20/B/8, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, or Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the non action of the Respondents 4 in Collusion with the Respondent No.5 against to the orders of ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 1367 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1066 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 26-06-2008 while not considering the petitioner complaint letter dated 03-07-2008 is as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, unconstitutional, and against to the principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the fifth respondent has dismantled the structures in the petitioner’s property notwithstanding the institution by the petitioner of O.S.No.1066 of 2008 on the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. In the suit, the petitioner had later obtained an ad-interim injunction against the fifth respondent. Despite the order of injunction, it is the petitioner’s complaint that the fifth respondent is interfering with the reconstruction by the petitioner of the demolished structures. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the fourth respondent but without any aid provided by the fourth respondent against the alleged conduct of the fifth respondent. Grievances of this nature are more particularly addressed to the substantive judicial forum where the petitioner had instituted a suit against the fifth respondent. The petitioner claims to have obtained ad-interim injunction and if the same has been violated by any individual or a party to the order of injunction, the petitioner can proceed against such contumacious conduct before the Court which had granted the order of injunction. If the petitioner needs the aid of the sovereign power of the State to effetuate the order of injunction, the petitioner can yet move the civil Court for grant of police aid. In any event, there is no justification whatsoever for recoursing the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because of the availability of effective, alternative, statutory remedies. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, with liberty to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Dt:19-08-2008 Note:Furnish copy as early as possible bo usd To 1 The Secretary, Government of A.P., Home Department, Secretariat, Hydeabad. 2 The Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hydeabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 The Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 6 Two CD copies.