Madras High Court
P.Ajmeer Abdul Rahman vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 June, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.21317 of 2014
P.Ajmeer Abdul Rahman : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by the
Home Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai ? 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Beach Road,
Chennai ? 7.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
O/o.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to
remove the petitioner s name in the History Sheet in No.225/2007 open by the
fifth respondent and pass such further or other orders.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
^For Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan,
Government Advocate.
:ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to remove the petitioner's name in the History Sheet in No.225/2007 opened by the fifth respondent.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he is doing real estate business and he was falsely implicated in Crime No.127 of 1998 on the file of Pathamadai Police Station and the said case was ended in acquittal. Thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the cases registered in Crime No.3 of 1999 on the file of the Moondradaippu Police Station and Crime no.16 of 1999 on the file of Cheranmahadevi Police Station and the same were ended in acquittal. At the time of enquiry conducted by the fifth respondent with regard to issuance of passport, the fifth respondent disclosed him that he has opened history sheet against the petitioner in the year 2007 and accordingly sent a false report against him to the passport office. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 5 on 23.09.2014 praying to remove his name from the history sheet. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not committed any offence and there was no action taken on his representation. Hence, he has come up before this Court with this writ petition.
4.The fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein no specific stand has been taken by the fifth respondent that the petitioner involves in various crimes, subsequent to the opening of the history sheet. Admittedly, history sheet was opened in the year 2007 and all the cases levelled against the petitioner ended in acquittal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P(MD)No.6023 of 2014, dated 24.07.2014 (N.Kumar v. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and five others) and prayed for passing similar orders.
6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the case of the petitioner would be considered by the authorities concerned, in the light of the above decision of the Principal Seat of this Court and prayed for passing appropriate orders.
7.In W.P(MD)No.6023 of 2014, dated 24.07.2014 (N.Kumar v. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and five others), this Principal Seat of this Court has held as follows:
?8.This Court, in the order dated 29.11.2012 made in W.P.No.30320 of 2012, has considered a similar issue and by placing reliance upon the earlier decision of this Court dated 22.06.2010 made in W.P.No.1199/2006, has ordered removal of the petitioner therein from the History Sheet. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Selvaraj and Others v. The Inspector of Police, Kaliakavilai Police Station, Kaliakavilai, Kanyakumari District and other [2010 Writ L.R. 335] has considered the scope of Police Standing Orders 746, 748, 749(1) & (3), 751 and 758 and also considered the judgment rendered by this Court in Vani v. Superintendent of Police [2008 (3) MLJ 1525] and held that the History Sheets were opened on 09.04.2006 and as per the Police Standing Orders, it should come to an end with December 2007 and in the absence of any information as to the continuance of the same, has found that the keeping of the petitioner's name in the History Sheet is unsustainable and therefore, disposed of the writ petition accordingly. It is relevant to extract the observations of this Court in the above cited judgment [2008 (3) MLJ 1525]:
In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have raised questions of far-reaching importance, namely, the rights of citizens of India to lead a free life subject to social control imposed by valid law. The question raised in all these writ petitions at the instance of the alleged disreputable characters cannot be allowed to deflect the perspective of this Court. If the police do what they did to these petitioners, they can also do the same to the honest and law abiding citizens.
2.The common thread in all these three Writ Petitioners are that the actions taken by the respective Station House Officers in opening History Sheets in the name of the petitioners mechanically counter signed by the respective Superior Police Officers is justified. .........
10.6.For those entries, without any basis, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had been counter signed year after year. In all those entries, it is noted that she was unmarried and she was having bad conduct. But she was found working in an Automobile company at Madurai and she was living with her family, who are doing milk business.
10.7. Even after her acquittal by the Criminal Court as early as on 30.09.2007, the Inspector of Police continued to retain her name in the History Sheets. Shockingly, even on 30.9.2007, a note was put up to continue her name under the surveillance list for one more year. 10.8. A perusal of the original file clearly shows that there was no basis for opening a History Sheet in the name of the petitioner and for making such entries there was no factual basis.
.........
13...... In one case, the petitioner in W.P.No.5378 of 2005 was acquitted. In the second case, the petitioner was on bail and he was also an elected Panchayat President. The notings in the files relating to the second and the third petitioners, noting were made periodically by the respondents stating heir conduct was not blameworthy. In the case of the first petitioner Ms.Vani, an endorsement stating that she is a unmarried woman, living with her parents and working in an Automobile Company, at Madurai but she was having bad character. There was not even an iota of material to support such remark found in the file. Either it shows the subjective opinion of the station House Officer or that it shows their clear animus towards the petitioners.
..........
16. In the above factual matrix, it is necessary to refer the PSO 746 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders providing power for opening history sheets and it reads as follows:
PSO 746, Part-IV History Sheets.
(I) Part V (Form No.111) shall contain the History Sheets of the persons resident permanently or temporarily in their Station limits who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not or who are believed to be habitual receivers.
.........
20.Therefore, in the light of the facts narrated and the legal precedents, it must be held that the actions of the respondents in all the three Writ Petitions are condemnable. Opening of the history sheets in the name of three petitioners are arbitrary, unreasonable and whimsical and it would amount to denial of right of citizens provided under Article 21 of the constitution of India to have the right of privacy. Though opportunities were given to the respondents, they have not shown any credible materials to justify their action before this Court. The superior officer though had considerable responsibility to oversee such records have acted in a mechanical fashion to put their initials periodically without any verification.
9. The above cited decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that in two murder cases, the petitioner was honourably acquitted even in the year 2008 and in yet another case involved in the commission of minor offences, which said to have taken place in the year 2012, the matter has been compromised and it is also not made clear whether the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy/History sheet has been extended subsequently. In the light of the materials placed before this Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner is addicted to crime as on today.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents 3 to 6 are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from History Sheet No.02/2012 forthwith?.
8.Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 3 to 5 are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the history sheet No.225/2007. However, it is made clear that it is always open to the respondents 3 to 5 to take appropriate legal action, if the petitioner involves in any of the illegal acts in future. No costs.
Note: Issue order copy on 17.06.2015.
To
1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 9.
2.The Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai ? 7.
3.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
5.The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.