ORDER : 1. Heard Sri J. Venkatram Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education for respondent Nos.1,4,6 and 9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.3, Sri Raparthy Venkatesh, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent No.10. Perused the record. 2. Petitioner is a society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is running a school namely Mufeed-Ul-Anam School situated at Yakathpura, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos.7 and 8, are neighbours of the said school and they have trespassed into the property of the school illegally. They have closed the school. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representation dated 24.05.2025 to the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station and Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and also to respondent Nos.2,3,5,6 and 9 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, the concerned respondents have not taken any action against respondent Nos.7 and 8. Aggrieved by the said in action of the aforesaid respondents, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that earlier Dharmavanth Hindi Educational Institutional Trust had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.14810 of 2021 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2, 3 and others to take necessary steps against respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein. The said writ petition was dismissed on 16.08.2021. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the said Trust preferred an intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letter Patent vide W.A.No.429 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to depute police personnel to the premises of the appellant and ensure that the locked premises are unlocked providing access to the appellant to the record of the institution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order was implemented and the said writ appeal is pending. Thus, now the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 10 have to consider the representation dated 30.05.2025 and take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8 to unlock the entrance gate of the school locked by respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent No.3 is also not taking any action against respondent Nos.7 and 8. 4. Thus, now the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 10 have to consider the representation dated 30.05.2025 and take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8 to unlock the entrance gate of the school locked by respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent No.3 is also not taking any action against respondent Nos.7 and 8. 4. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have locked the school premises on 24.05.2025 at 11.00A.M. Therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint with Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station on 24.05.2025 and also a complaint dated 24.05.2025 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone and to respondent No.3 - Commissioner of Police. The petitioner has sent complaint dated 24.05.2025 to the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station through post and it has filed only postal receipt. It has not filed proof of service of the said complaint on Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station. The petitioner did not make the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station as party to the present writ petition. Though the petitioner is claiming that it has lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone on 24.05.2025, it has not made the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone as party to the present writ petition. However, the petitioner has filed copy of the complaint dated 24.05.2025 submitted to respondent No.3 - Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 5. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that it has submitted representation to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 and 10 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 and they have not taken any action on the same. 6. Perusal of order dated 16.08.2021 in W.P. No.14810 of 2021 would reveal that respondent Nos.7 and 8 are claiming that they are the lease-holders of Dharmavath Hindi Educational Institutional Trust, and they have entered into lease deed on 27.06.2014. On the strength of the said lease deed only, they are running the educational institutions of the petitioner. Considering the said aspects and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki , (2020) 16 SCC 728 , this Court dismissed the said writ petition. The vide said trust had preferred a writ appeal W.A. No.429 of 2021. Considering the said aspects and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki , (2020) 16 SCC 728 , this Court dismissed the said writ petition. The vide said trust had preferred a writ appeal W.A. No.429 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Police, to depute police personnel to the premises of the appellant and ensure that the premises is unlocked providing access to the appellant to the record of the institution. The Division Bench also considered the submissions made by the said Trust that it has to issue various certificates to the students. The said writ appeal is pending. 7. As discussed above, according to the petitioner, respondent Nos.7 and 8 locked the premises on 24.05.2025. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are private parties. If the petitioner has any grievance against respondent Nos.7 and 8, it has to avail alternative remedies. It cannot submit representation to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 and 10 and to take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8. If respondent Nos.7 and 8 trespassed into the property of the petitioner and locked the school, it has to lodge a complaint with the concerned Police and if the concerned Police did not act upon the same, it has to submit a representation to Higher Authorities. Thereafter, it has to file a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. Instead of doing so, the petitioner is contending that it has submitted representation to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 and 10 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.6 and 7 and open the school. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 and 10 cannot take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8 and cannot inter se interfere with disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are claiming right over the property based on the lease deed. Therefore, it is a civil dispute. 8. As discussed above, though the petitioner is contending that it has submitted a representation to the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station, it has not filed proof of service of the same and it has not made the Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station as party to the present writ petition. It is also specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was established in the year 1935. It is also specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was established in the year 1935. The Mufeed-Ul-Anam Schools and Dharmavanth Trust and its Educational Institutions are running under the management of Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad. As discussed above, the Dharmavanth Hindi Educational Institutional Trust has already preferred a writ appeal and it is pending. Division Bench has already directed respondent No.3 to depute police personnel to the premises of the appellant and open the lock. Therefore, the said trust has to pursue the said writ appeal. Instead of doing so and availing the alternative remedies, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 and 10 to act accordingly, open the entrance of the petitioner school closed by respondent Nos.7 and 8. It amounts to interfering with civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8. As discussed above, as per the order dated 16.08.2021 in W.P. No.14810 of 2021, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are claiming right over the subject property as lease-holders. However, it is subject matter of writ appeal. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are private respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.