IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29309 of 2009 Between: Penumatcha Subba Raju ..... Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by the Station House Officer, Karlapalem P.S., Guntur District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.V.Nagabhushana Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M. Seshatalpa Sai The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29309 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in refusing to grant police protection to the petitioner in spite of subsistence of an order of injunction granted by the civil Court, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are fighting a civil litigation. The petitioner obtained an order of injunction in I.A.No.416 of 2006 in O.S.No.285 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. When respondent No.2 allegedly started interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the suit schedule property, the latter is stated to have approached respondent No.1 for police aid for implementation of the order of injunction. Alleging that respondent No.1 refused to extend the police aid, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1283 of 2006 seeking police aid and that by order dated 30.01.2009 police aid was directed to be given by the civil Court. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said order, respondent No.1 extended police aid for the agricultural season pertaining to the year for which the order was passed. However, when respondent No.2 allegedly started interfering with the petitioner’s agricultural operations for the following year, respondent No.1 allegedly refused to extend police aid. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit along with the vacate stay application. At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the injunction order obtained by the petitioner is in force as on today. It is also axiomatic that so long as the injunction order remains in force, respondent No.2 is not entitled to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the property and whenever such interference is caused, it is the duty and obligation of the police to extend their help to implement the injunction order. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the relief claimed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. Sri M. Seshatalpa Sai, learned counsel for respondent No.2, stated that his client is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the land and that he will not do so, so long as the injunction order remains in force. He further submitted that in the guise of the interim order passed by this Court directing extension of police aid, respondent No.1 is harassing his client by summoning him to the police station. Having regard to the statement of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that his client is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, respondent No.1 shall not interfere with the life and liberty of respondent No.2, so long as he does not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in question, till such time as the injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner remains in force. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.37953 of 2009 and WVMP.No.1326 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.04.2011 ES