IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15367 of 2008 Between: 1 Bolla Chinna Venkanna S/o. Kanaka Pothu Raju R/o. Peda Tummidi Village, Bantumalli Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Bolla Venkata Yoganand S/o. Chinna Venkanna R/o. Peda Tummidi Village, Bantumalli Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Circle Inspector, Bandar Rural, Krishna District. 3 Station House Officer, Bantumalli, Bantumalli Mandal, Krishna District. .....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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2008 for providing police protection is not legal and valid and consequently direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15367 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of Ac.12.00 of land situated in R.S.Nos.865, 546 and 863 situated at Bandlagudem Hamlet of Peda Tummidi Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District. Apart from the said land, the petitioners have also taken on lease another extent of Ac.6.00 and they have converted the entire Ac.18.00 of land into a ﬁsh pond for raising pisiculture. Alleging that some members belonging to Scheduled Caste started interfering with the possession of the petitioners and did not allow them to catch ﬁsh, the petitioners made a representation dated 4.7.2008 requesting police protection to enable them to catch fish. On the said representation dated. 04- 07-2008 the 1st respondent herein-the Superintendent of Police made an endorsement directing the 2nd respondent-the Circle Inspector of Police, Bandar Rural to take necessary action. However, the 2nd respondent failed to take any action. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representation of the petitioners for providing police protection, is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 3 rd respondent stating that on the basis of the representation dated.04-07-2008 made by the petitioners, a preliminary enquiry was conducted which revealed that there was a dispute between the petitioners’ family and the Scheduled Caste people of Bandlagudem village. A report to that eﬀect was submitted to the 1st respondent on 15- 07-2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Even according to the petitioners, they have taken on lease Ac.6.00 of land belonging to their brother. The fact that certain disputes are pending between the brother of the petitioners and the members belonging to the S.C. community of the village relating to the said land is also not in dispute. It appears that the other group is claiming that the land in question forms part of land assigned to them. Having regard to rival claims between two groups, it is for the petitioners to work out the appropriate common law remedy seeking necessary directions restraining the members of other group from interfering with their fishing operations. Since apparently there is a dispute between two groups, which is civil in nature, the respondents herein cannot be found fault with in not providing the police protection to one group to catch the ﬁsh. Hence the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to work out the appropriate common law remedy as available under law for redressal of the grievance. No order as to costs. __________ G.ROHINI,J 25th September,2008 *TSNR