Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nayini Bathini Srihari, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 December, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.15795 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking action against the respondent Nos.5 to 12 based on petitioner's representations dated 05.02.2020, 06.02.2020 and 04.03.2020 and by recommending the 1st respondent to detain the respondent Nos.5 to 12 under A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India."
2. The petitioner's case in brief is that, 50 years ago, the Government allotted land to an extent of Ac 2.00 cents in Sy No.323/4 of Sivapuram Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District to his mother Bathini, China Yogamma under land ceiling Act. Since then his parents were in possession and enjoyment of said land and they made the land fit for cultivation and raised seasonal crops. After their demise, he came into possession and enjoyment of lands and his name is also mutated in revenue records.
3. His family belongs to Dasari Community and he is selling bangles, turmeric, Kum Kum and other things by visiting neighboring villages and used to return to village after several months. Taking advantage of his absence in the village, the respondents who are habitual offenders and land grabbers, tried to alienate his land by creating fictitious documents. On coming to know the same, he questioned them before village elders they openly challenged him saying no court will come to his rescue and he can do whatever he want. Therefore he filed suit for permanent injunction against 2 respondent Nos.6 and 7 and two others in O.S.No.16 of 2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda for permanent injunction and the same is pending.
4. As the matter stood thus, on 04.02.2020 while he was carrying on agriculture operations in his land, respondent Nos.5 to 10 along with four other persons came to his land, armed with deadly weapons and beat him indiscriminately and damaged tobacco crop in an extent of Ac 0.30 cents and set fire to some extent and tried to kill him by pushing into flames. He raised cries and the neighboring people came running to rescue him and on seeing them the respondents fled away from there. On 05.02.2020, he lodged a complaint with the respondent Nos.2 and 4 requesting them to take action against the said accused and also to provide police protection to his family as he has immense threat to life. But the respondent Nos.2 and 4 did not take any action on his report.
5. Again on 06.02.2020, while he was proceeding to neighboring village in the morning for selling bangles, at about 10:30 AM the respondent Nos.5 to 11 came in a drunken state with 60 to 70 antisocial elements to his land and called his brother Bathini Venkat Rao to come to land by abusing in filthy language and threatened saying, if he does not come, they will enter into his house and kill him. They high handedly entered into his land and damaged his crop worth of Rs.1 lakh with tractor. Thereafter, all of them came to BC Colony and created havoc with knives and sticks. Due to fear, her brother remained inside the house and informed him about their high handed action over phone and immediately he returned village and brought the villagers along with him, on seeing them the respondents ran away.
3
6. On 15.03.2020, while his wife Hanumayamma and daughter- in-law were taking tea at his house, wife of 12th respondent Bathina Parvathi picked up quarrel and beat his daughter in law Nayini Vijaya and wife with hands and legs, abused them in filthy language and torn their clothes. His daughter-in-law was shifted to Hospital for treatment and on information from the hospital the police recorded her statement and registered a case in Crime No.79/20 u/s 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC Bathina Parvathi, 12th respondent and 7 others. On coming to know the same the 12th respondent who is a journalist, by making use of his influence obtained a false medical report and got registered a counter case with false allegations in Cr.No.80/20 u/s 324, 323 and 509 IPC. On 17.02.2020, he also made a representation in spandana programme to 2nd respondent. But till date no action is taken on his representation.
7. The 12th respondent who is hand in glove with the respondent Nos.5 to 11 is approaching the 3rd respondent to coerce him to withdraw cases filed against him, his wife and other respondents. The 3rd respondent Vipparla Venkateswar Rao, S.I. of Police, Vinukonda Police station who is colluded with the respondent Nos.5 to 12 is making calls frequently through his cell No.9381188123, from the phone of Constable Khaja and Constable Kaitha Avula to him, his wife, his brother and daughter-in-law even during odd hours of night, threatening him to come to police station for withdrawing cases and to hand over his land to the respondent Nos.5 to12.
8. During the course of hearing, Ms.T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the representations dated 05.02.2020, 06.02.2020 and 04.03.2020 submitted by the petitioner by registered post making certain 4 allegations referred above, but no action has been taken till date by the respondents to provide appropriate protection by registering a crime against the culprits and requested to issue appropriate direction, while expressing readiness to bear the expenses for providing police protection to the petitioner and her property.
9. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that a case in Cr.No.79/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 509 IPC against the persons mentioned in the complaint and issued F.I.R, and the same is pending for investigation. Therefore, the respondent police acted upon the complaint of petitioner and investigated into the allegations made against the persons referred in the complaint. It is further contended that the respondents cannot provide police protection to each and everyone. Unless there is an order from the Court the respondents are not providing police protection to anyone and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
10. Undisputedly, a complaint was lodged and again a report was submitted. Basing on the complaint, case in Cr.No.79/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 509 IPC was registered and it is pending for investigation. Therefore, absolutely, there is no inaction on the part of the respondents for setting criminal law into motion based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, no direction need be given against the respondents for registration of crime based on the complaint of petitioner.
11. The second part of relief claimed is to provide police protection to the person and property, as ever danger to her life, and in case no such direction is given, she may loose her life besides her property and requested to issue a direction. But, it is a difficult task for police 5 to provide protection both to the property and person, who made such representation. In any view of the matter, if there is any threat perception, the remedy is to make appropriate application to the concerned authority to provide police protection in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655, Home (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997. The same question came up before the Apex Court in N.H.R.C vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh1 in which it is held as follows:-
Providing security cover to the individual citizen is nothing but a burden to the State and the State cannot be burdened with the liability of providing armed escort/gun-man to such of those persons who indulge in factions and group rivalry, unless it is clearly established that there is direct threat perception to their life from known and identified persons or group of persons. Even then it would not be possible for the State machinery to provide adequate security to each and every individual who on their own conduct gets involved or implicated in criminal cases. It is true that the State is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults. Failure to give adequate protection may well amount to failure to perform its constitutional as well as statutory obligations. It is true that the State must act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well- being of the people residing in the State without being inhibited by local politics.
12. The Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in G.Subas Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 on reference by the Single Judge as to exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the authorities to provide security to all the persons, who are either leading factions or actively participating in the factions, laid down certain principles for the guidance of the authorities concerned in the matter of providing security to the persons concerned. One of the principles laid down is 1 (1996) 1 SCR 278 2 1997(1) ALD (Crl.) 19 6 under item No.5, which will be applicable to the present case, reads as under:-
[5] individual or individuals, who apprehend threat to peace and to his or their lives can approach the competent authority at the first instance at the district level and make application for deployment of special force for maintaining peace and for protection of his or their lives and liberty. On such application being made, the competent authority shall be duty bound to promptly make suitable orders without any delay. In case the application is rejected by the district authority, the applicant shall have the right to make application before the superior authority in the hierarchy as indicated above, the last being before the Government of the State. The applicant/applicants for such security or deployment of Special Police force shall, however, be responsible for the cost as envisaged under the Acts aforementioned and the Government shall have no authority at all to make any expense upon such special force from and out of the revenue of the State.
13. There can be no pick and choose in providing security to any person and the only thing that will guide making such provisions will be the perception of threat and the duty of the Government of the State to protect the life and properties of individuals. High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall evidently extends to judicial review of the order passed by the competent authority, including the State Government upon the application for providing police security of any such individual or individuals and the Court; with all the self-imposed restriction upon it power of judicial review, shall examine whether the application has been rightly rejected and necessary suitable directions may issue. 7
14. Thus, in an application for providing police security to individual the following directions are given by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh:-
(1) The State has duly to provide necessary security to the constitutional functionaries and if there is any expense upon such security, the Government can do so out of the funds of the exchequer of the State;
(2) The Government has a duty to protect the properties of the State including the union and the other State Government and any expenses for security of the properties of the State can legitimately be borne out of the State's exchequer;
(3) Depending upon the threat perception in respect of such statutory functionaries which are discharging duties on behalf of the State the Government may take policy decision and provides security to such personnel to such extent as decided by the Government and expenses for the same can legitimately be borne by the State exchequer;
(4) The State has a duty to maintain peace to ensure that the public order is not threatened to protect the life and liberty of all persons living within the territory of the State as well as has a duty to enforce effectively such measures as law have permitted for preventing any unlawful activity of any persons and the State;
(5) Individual or individuals, who apprehend threat to peace and to his either lives can approach the competent authority at the first instance at the District level and make application for deployment of special force for maintaining peace and for protection of his or their lives and liberty. On such application being made, the competent authority shall be duty bound to promptly made suitable orders without any delay;
(6) Any person or persons, who, however, have apprehension or threat to their life or his or her property from the Government, its servants or agents, in essential cases, can approach the Court for suitable orders and the court at the first instance, will be, the Court of the Magistrate, who may issue, necessary directions for bonds to be executed.
(7) Applicant, in case his applications have been refused can approach this Court seeking judicial review of the order of the Court with all constraints self-imposed and within the bounds of 8 rules of judicial review may examine individual review strictly in accordance with law.
15. In view of the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court, guidelines (4) and (5) are relevant to the facts of the present case, since these two guidelines relate to an individual or individual citizen, but here in this case without making any application to the District Level Security Committee to decide threat perception the petitioner submitted a report and it is not in accordance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore I am not inclined to exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction to provide police protection not only to the property but also to the person, leaving it open to the petitioner to make appropriate application strictly in terms of guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court referred above to the District Level Security Committee for providing necessary police protection. Therefore, I find no ground to issue any direction to provide police protection to the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the District Level Security Committee to decide threat perception and to provide necessary protection in accordance with law.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 09.09.2020 VSL 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.15795 OF 2020 Date: 09.09.2020 VSL