WP/22725/2004 of Puskuri Ravinder Rao, Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 28 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 22725 of 2004

Between:

Puskuri Ravinder Rao, S/o. P. Suryaprakasa Rao, R/o. 24-155, Ashok Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

2 Mr. Shekar, C/o. Station House Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto Issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent so far as instigating the2nd respondent to search the residence of the petitioner with a team consistingof 4 to 5 constables without any reason or cause on 3.12.2004, at about 6-30P.M. as amounting to highly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequentlyto direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate departmental action against the2nd respondent forthwith and pass such other or further orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI

Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME

Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner states that he is being harassed by the respondents, though nocomplaint is filed against him, much less any case was registered. Thepetitioner has referred to the instances of his having been called to the policestation and indiscriminate sending of police constables to his residence. Healso states that the first respondent has made telephonic calls threatening him.

A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegationsmade by the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forHome.

The very necessity for the petitioner to approach this Court discloses that hewas subjected to harassment though not up to the degree referred to in theaffidavit. The necessity to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioneragainst the respondents is obviated for the reason that the respondents havedenied of having interfered with the rights of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, the respondents do not have unbridled power to interfere withthe freedom and rights of the individuals. It is only when a specific complaint ismade or when a case is registered that they can require the citizens to attendthe police stations or to undertake investigation. Unauthorized interference withthe rights of the citizens amounts to illegality and if it is proved it may entail in further legal action.

The statement made on behalf of the respondents is recorded and the writpetition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not interfere with orotherwise harass the petitioner, except where specific complaint is receivedagainst him alleging commission of crime punishable under relevant provisionof law. No order as to costs.

-----------------------

28.12.2004

ksld

To