THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11267 of 2010 Date: 1.6.2010 Between: Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mohd. Asifuddin Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 : G.P. for Home The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :11267 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in providing police protection to the Trust property bearing Survey No. 69 to an extent of Acs.1.11 guntas situated at Tettekunta Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar DIstrict as illegal. The petitioner claimed to be a Trust having interest over the above mentioned property. According to the petitioner, one Shiva Ravinder, who is a devotee of Avatar Mehar Baba, played fraud by purchasing the above mentioned property in his name instead of in the name of the Trust. The order of mutation passed in favour of the said Shiva Ravinder is subject matter of litigation pending in W.P. No.21869 of 2009. At the instance of the petitioner, a Criminal case has been registered as F.I.R. No. 99, dated 14.4.2010, by respondent No.3 and the investigation into the said case is stated to be pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the said Shiva Ravinder is trying to forcibly occupy the above mentioned property, the respondents have not been extending the police aid. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no substance in this writ petition. If the civil rights of the petitioner are sought to be defeated by a third party, the petitioner is entitled to invoke common law remedies before the common law Courts seeking appropriate orders. If the acts of third party constitute commission of offence, the petitioner is entitled to set the criminal law procedure in motion by giving appropriate reports before the police. The Supreme Court in P.R.Muralidharan vs. Swamy Dharmananda Theerth Padar[1], while disapproving filing of writ petitions of this nature, held as under- “It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil Court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate cases” On the above premise, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 1st June, 2010 pnb [1] (2006) 4 SCC 501