Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Meduri Subba Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 December, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
WRIT PETITION Nos.15603, 17865 and 23211 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
In this batch of writ petitions, the common grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondent Police officials are not providing Police aid to implement the permanent injunction decrees passed in their favour.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.
3. The petitioners claim to have obtained permanent injunction decrees from a competent civil Court against the unofficial respondents in all these writ petitions when they made illegal attempts to trespass into their property and occupy the same. It is their grievance that despite passing of the decrees for permanent injunction by a competent civil Court that the official respondents, in utter violation of the said decrees, are interfering with the rights of the petitioners in respect of their property. Therefore, they sought Police aid by approaching the respondent Police officials respectively. It is stated that the Police did not provide any Police aid to implement the permanent injunction decrees passed by a competent civil Court. Therefore, they sought a direction in these writ petitions to the respondent Police officials to provide Police aid for effective implementation of the aforesaid permanent injunction decrees passed in their favour.
4. The claim of the petitioners to provide Police aid is opposed by learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents on the ground that the petitioners did not approach the concerned civil Court, which passed the permanent injunction decrees, seeking Police aid and in the absence of any such orders from the civil Court that the Police officials cannot provide any Police aid to them as the 2 CMR,J W.P.Nos.15603, 17865 and 23211 of 2020 dispute is of civil nature. Learned Government Pleader for Home also opposed the present writ petitions by placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in the case of Polavarapu Nagamani vs. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao1, wherein it was held that the aggrieved persons have to approach the civil Court, which passed the decree and the civil Court, after hearing the respondents, against whom the decree was passed, has to decide whether to provide Police aid or not, and they cannot directly approach the writ Court seeking Police aid.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the above judgment in Polavarapu Nagamani (1 supra) is held to be per incuriam in the case of Gampala Anthaiah vs. Kasarla Venkat Reddy2 by this Court as it runs contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court reported in the cases of Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal3 and Satyanarayana Tiwari vs. S.H.O., P.S., Santhoshanagar, Hyderabad4, wherein it was held that the Courts have jurisdiction to grant Police aid.
6. It is not in dispute that the competent civil Courts have passed decrees for permanent injunction in respect of property covered by all these writ petitions in favour of the petitioners. There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to seek Police aid for implementation of the permanent injunction decrees. Provision is made in the scheme of the Code only to proceed against the persons, who suffered the said permanent injunction decrees, for disobeying the said decrees. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can approach the writ Court seeking a direction to the Police officials to 1 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB) 2 (2014) 2 ALD 281 3 AIR 1962 SC 527 4 AIR 1982 (AP) 394 3 CMR,J W.P.Nos.15603, 17865 and 23211 of 2020 provide Police aid for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decrees to enable the decree holders to enjoy the fruits of the said decrees.
7. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents that the petitioners cannot approach the writ Court without approaching the civil Court, which passed the permanent injunction decrees, cannot be countenanced in view of the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Gampala Anthaiah (2 supra). It is now well settled law that when a decree for permanent injunction was passed by a competent civil Court, when there is an attempt by the persons, who are suffering the said decrees, to disobey the said decree, the aggrieved party can approach the writ Court seeking Police aid. Therefore, in view of the settled law in this regard as has been held by this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari (4 supra), Gampala Anthaiah (2 supra) and A.Bharathi vs. State of Telangana5 and by the Apex Court in Manohar Lal Chopra (3 supra), the petitioners are entitled for grant of Police aid in all these writ petitions.
8. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed, directing the respondent Police officials to provide Police aid to the petitioners for effective implementation of the permanent injunction decrees that are passed in their favour. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J 10th December, 2020 GHN 5 (2017) 1 ALD 503 4 CMR,J W.P.Nos.15603, 17865 and 23211 of 2020