The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that where a civil suit is already pending between parties, the High Court ordinarily will not issue a writ of mandamus directing police protection, and parties should seek remedies from the civil court; this judgment reaffirms settled precedent and has binding value in similar writ proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/17017/2020 of Rangappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010258002020 |
| Date of Registration | 21-09-2020 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Andhra Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law; Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus should issue for police protection when a civil suit is already pending and parties can seek remedies from the civil court. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, in light of the pending civil suit between the parties regarding the same subject matter, it is not appropriate for the court to intervene on the writ side for police protection. The Court affirmed that the petitioner may avail appropriate remedies before the competent civil court. Thus, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily exercised to grant police protection when civil remedies exist and are being pursued. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court for necessary reliefs. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The dispute is civil in nature, with a civil suit already pending between the petitioner and unofficial respondents. The petitioner sought police protection on the premise of apprehended breach of peace and disobedience of a court order; both respondents and the State confirmed pendency of the civil suit. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts will not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction for police protection where a civil suit between the same parties is pending.
- Parties should exhaust remedies before the competent civil court, including any interim or ancillary reliefs.
- Clarifies that the existence of civil proceedings precludes writ remedies for similar relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the dispute is civil in nature and that a suit is already pending between the parties before the competent civil court.
- Both the Assistant Government Pleader for Home and counsel for the unofficial respondents confirmed pendency of the civil suit.
- The petitioner, through counsel, agreed that the matter may be disposed of with liberty to pursue remedies before the civil court.
- Relying on the above, the Court held that no further orders are required in the writ petition and that the appropriate forum for any further relief is the civil court already seized of the matter.
- The writ petition was thus disposed of, without costs, and liberty granted to pursue civil remedies.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought police protection to prevent breach of peace and enforcement of a judicial injunction, citing inaction by the police authorities.
- Requested that the writ petition be disposed of with liberty to seek remedies before the civil court in view of submissions made.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature.
- Emphasized that the police authorities were not interfering as civil proceedings were pending between the parties.
Unofficial Respondents
- Confirmed existence of a pending civil suit between the parties, which was listed for trial.
Factual Background
The petitioner and unofficial respondents are parties to a civil dispute regarding the same subject matter, currently pending before a competent civil court. The petitioner sought police protection, alleging danger of breach of peace and disobedience of a civil court injunction. Both the State and unofficial respondents concurred regarding the pendency of the civil suit.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs was invoked, with the Court holding that such extraordinary relief is not warranted where adequate remedies exist before the civil courts.
- Reference to Articles 14 and 21 was made in claiming violation of rights, but the primary legal analysis turned on the appropriate forum for relief.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; the matter was disposed of in accordance with standard practice, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedies before the civil court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed settled principle regarding writ jurisdiction and existence of alternate civil remedies.
Citations
No external citations provided in the body of the order. The judgment is WP No. 17017 of 2020, CNR APHC010258002020, decided on 02-09-2025.