Madras High Court
D.Muruganantham vs The Commissioner Of Police on 26 March, 2007
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/03/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VEERARAGHAVAN WRIT PETITION (MD) No.11108 of 2006 D.Muruganantham ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 4.The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutrition Meals Programme, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 5.The State Commissioner for the Disable, Thousand Lights, Chennai. 6.The Director General of Police, Mahatma Gandhi Statute, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents (Respondents 2 to 6 were impleaded as per the Order in M.P.1/2007, dated 06.03.2007) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Tamilnadu Prevention of Begging Act, 1945 (Act No.XIII of 1945) strictly. !For petitioner ... Mr.D.Muruganantham, Party-in-Person. ^For respondents ... Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate. :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J) As a pro bono publico, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Begging Act, 1945 (Act XIII of 1945), in short "the Act" in strict sense.
2.The petitioner is a practising Advocate, who has taken up on himself the marathon job of collecting particulars as regards the functioning of the Special Care Home and the Government Care Camp, which even the first respondent, the Head of Police Administration in Madurai City, is not aware of. The petitioner has placed before us the details as regards the commencement of the Government Care Camp at Melpakkam, which was started as early as on 01.03.1954. The said Home was under the control of the Department of Police from 01.03.1954 to 30.09.1973 and subsequently under the control of the Social Welfare Department from 01.10.1973 to 30.11.1984 and thereafter it was controlled by the Prison Authorities from 01.12.1984 to 30.01.197 and at present, it is stated to be under the control of Social Welfare Department (State Commissioner to Disabled), the 5th respondent herein, within the State. We also find from a Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.5, Social Welfare Department, dated 02.01.1976, about the merger of the Special Care Home at Kancheepuram with the Care Camp at Melpakkam, pursuant to the proposals submitted by the Collector of Chingleput District. Such merger provided for provision of additional staff and transfer of vehicles at the Special Care Home at Melpakkam for the proper functioning of the Special Care Home as well as the Government Care Camp which is nothing but a workhouse.
3.When notice was ordered in this writ petition, the first respondent Commissioner of Police, Madurai City has filed two counter affidavits and the averments contained in both the counter affidavits are identical. While considering the various pit falls pointed out by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as regards the menace of widespread begging, not only in and around the City of Madurai but throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, in the counter affidavit the first respondent has virtually admitted everyone of the averments relating to the prevalence of the beggars menace as alleged by the petitioner. In fact, the tone and tenor of the counter affidavit disclose that the first respondent is eager to implement the provisions of the Act, but he has only come forward with an impediment which prevents him from exercising his authority and jurisdiction vested in him and his subordinates under the provisions of the Act by pointing out to Section 4 of the Act.
4.Under Section 4 of the Act, it is stated that the provisions of Sections 5 to 8 of the Act would apply only if the State Government notified a place as 'workhouse' or as "special home". Similarly, for the application of Section 9 of the Act, such a notification of a place as a workhouse is mandatory. Section 3 of the Act is the penal provision which states that who ever is found begging is liable to be punished with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees or with imprisonment which may extend to one month for the first offence and for the subsequent convictions with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. The imposition of the penalty as provided under Section 3 can be made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Magistrate under Section 9 of the Act. Under Section 9, if a Magistrate finds that a person in respect of whom an enquiry is made is found guilty of an offence under Section 3 and such person has attained the age of 18 years who is also physically capable of ordinary manual labour and if there is a workhouse, instead of sentencing him under Section 3, the Magistrate can order him to be detained in such "workhouse" for a period of not less than one year and not more than three years. The proviso to Section 9 would enable the Magistrate on satisfaction to release the beggar after due admonition on execution of a bond with or without sureties.
5.The impediment highlighted by the first respondent is only on this aspect of the statutory provision. Since the existence of the "Special Care Home" as well as "workplace", which is called as "Government Care Camp", has already been notified and functioning, there is no reason why the first respondent should wait any longer for implementing the provisions of the Act, at least insofar as the City of Madurai is concerned. It is not as if under Section 4, the requirement of notification for a "workhouse" or a "Special Care Home" is to be located in different places for the effective working of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 itself states that State Government should notify 'a place' as workhouse or as special care home. Therefore what is to be notified being only a "workhouse" or a "special home" and since the State Government has already notified and started the commencement of the workhouse as well as special care home right from the year 1954, we deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to strictly implement the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Begging Act, 1`954 (Act XIII of 1945), without awaiting for any more notifications from the State Government. For the very same reasons, we also feel that the impleaded 6th respondent, namely Director General of Police, can also issue appropriate directions to all the heads of police authorities functioning in different districts to implement the provisions of the Act as that would not only provide a solace to the general public but will be a measure, as a first step, insofar as the affected persons, namely the have nots (beggars).
6.In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to a Division Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court, reported in AIR 2001 AP 273 (Abhipraay Welfare Society v. State of A.P.), wherein His Lordship Justice S.B.SINHA (as he then was) has stated the importance of implementation of the provisions of an identical statute in the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Begging Act (Act 12 of 1977). Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment read as under:
"11.Section 12 of the Act is mandatory in nature. While implementing the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, a duty is cast upon the Government not only to see that the menace of beggary is eradicated, but also see that those indulging in beggary and people living in abject poverty are rehabilitated by taking such measures as are necessary for their welfare and social security.
12.In the above view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions.
The respondents shall conduct another socio economic survey of beggars within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Insofar as the measures to be taken for the purpose of implementing the Act, the respondents shall construct as many beggar homes as possible, but not less than 25 at different places, depending upon the population of beggars at a given place. As indicated in the supplemental counter-affidavit, the respondents shall take steps to construct beggar homes at Rangareddy District within one year from today at the designated place. We hope and trust that the authorities concerned shall strive hard to see that the provisions of the Act are implemented as far as practicable, within the afore-mentioned period. The petitioner-Society as also other non-governmental organizations working in the field, shall extend necessary help and co-operation in the implementation of this order as well as the provisions of the Act. The petitioner or any other organization working in the field, are at liberty to approach this Court, if any occasions arises therefor in future. ..."
7.The writ petition is therefore ordered on the above terms. Since, the petitioner has taken up on himself the task of identifying a vital issue, which, if properly implemented, would benefit the public at large to a very great extent as well as the Beggars themselves, we feel that the petitioner deserves a token of appreciation. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petition on the above terms, we direct the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) by way of costs payable to the petitioner, who appeared in person.
gb.
To:
1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
3.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
4.The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutrition Meals Programme, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
5.The State Commissioner for the Disable, Thousand Lights, Chennai.
6.The Director General of Police, Mahatma Gandhi Statute, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.