Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner claiming to have retired from the Army, honourably, was put under surveillance by the State and its machinery allegedly on information that he had connecEio'n_s'~_v with Liberation of Tamil Tigers Elam (L'l"I'E), wh¢;{_:i'.a"'iii.:;i1f' _ placed dignitary was to visit Bangaloreflity, ':1'a's"~pr_e,fe';~red this writ petition for (i) direction to the respondentsi"not:ft.o hamper or intrude to the livelihood '~,_aictiVities' of the petitioner' or in the alternative, to directu the respoindefnts to divulge inforrnation and basis for ca;-asi1ig'»harassment to the petitioner;w{iiv}__idi.recition to '--._the"'--respondents jointly and severally to pay just" cfe».mp.en'satioin'as claimed in the petition for infringemientiof his '§$he "lpetition""i'sii opposed by filing Statement of i_§7--11--2005 of the 4th respondent _ Comm__issioner"afiPolice, Bangalore city, interalia contending on 1'lS%06--2005, a "crash message" was received from the .Addi_tional Director General of Police, Intelligence, stating ._:"that;Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, M is likely to visit 'I'uticorin, Tamil Nadu, in the first week of July, 2005 and therefore to keep a lookout on the movement of Terrorists, Militants, Muslims, Fundamentalist, ULFA, LTTE and other activities, which in turn was communlicated, ., to all the Police Stations in the city. A Police it by name R. Naganna was entrusted :With"the jltoifveri-fjr and surveillance of 13 persons, one A.W"l'lO>fI'1._.VVaS«, petitioner, leading to his visiting ._h0use,_of' on 16-0'7--2005. It is stated that thellpetitiionerhissaidto have used abusive language Police Sub-

Inspector, whenCe,_:tl1e peititione-;r's:'uficfei his rescue. Enquiries: frorn" said, disclosed that the petitioner "not coia,ri2it"'a:n3r"criminal acts and that the petitioner. while as Assistant Security Officer in Bvharat.C'E£ectr"onicsH«Limited (B.E.L.}, Jalahalli, the BEL I-litharakshana Samithi (Regd), published a..pa;1iphlet stating that the petitioner is against i"~.,_lKannada' and Kannadigas, and ought to be transferred from P'_'l«,i.lIl§_.'l.,,:lo,1.lowed by an enquiry by the police when it was frlevealed 1 hat the petitioner was an active supporter of LTTE M and had xisited the house of Sivarasan, the prime accused in Rajiv (}andhi's assassination. It is in this View of the matter, the petitioner, it is stated, was kept under close watch by police.

3. The petition is opposed byoniiling 0' objections dated 3041-2005 of theg 63% 11"' Central Bureau of Investigation»; -i.r__1.teralia_ there was no occasion for the havelaiiglzlirolle play in the investigation, eI'1(211.1lV1'A#\:(f.'.'(:,.1' thelifel of the petitioner. The petition is by.:fiiirig.lf5tatement of objections dated iof";Re'sp:onden.ts 1 and 8, the Union of India andthfe-»1§egional=fPassport Officer respectively, interalia contendingl _th'at" petitioner's application for _.grant Pvassportliwasv"accepted and a Passport was issued hon. :16.--_V1}~_l9£é9'VA.'and on the basis of the communication zfifflltirespondent that the petitioner was a Vsympalthiser. "of LTTE, the petitioner was directed to l'i.'.asiiirrA=ender Passport by letter dated 24-04-2000 which l_l_was._l"'qiJashed by an order of this court in IJW'-;vF{i\Io.16139/2000, and the proceeding remitted for Jeri consideration afresh. According to the 8*" respondent, the request for a police verification report from the 4th respondent did not yield result despite remainders dated 09-2005 and 25--03~200s Annexures R-4 respectively, and as there was no recommendation _'for issue of the Passport, the petitioner's pas:sportAggW_fas.gg iir1Apo:u11d.eidii_Ag_gi' which though brought to the vf10'tiCC of the petitioner suppressed in the writ petition. Tl"1e_.i'petitione.r's'request for grant of Passport is said toun_der_con.sid'e.ration subject to awaiting a verification report from

4. Having. :i7lCa:i7:;Cii'~."t1'"1vf',':'ié3fI1Cd counsel for the parties and perused' the pieadingsgtheire is little doubt that the police havinglbeien by the 'crash message' to verify ..n5}oVe1nentsi 'cfgvcertrain persons and sympathizes of "{)rga1i.izations inimical to national security, were subjected to surveillance;ii'_"Petitioner's action of having met Sivarasan the V prime accu«sedvin Rajiv Gandhfs assassination, in the light of AAe.n_qu5.ry¢during the year 1993 required beefing up of intern'al7security by the State and its Departments, more so placing the petitioner's movements under surveillance, when is the Prime Minister was to visit Tamil Nadu during 2005. No exception can be taken to the action of the police officers. The petitioner may claim to be an innocent citizen, but, that does not mean that he should not be put under suriveililanicel' J" . if there is credible information over his actionsv,_u*-likelji it affect the security of the country and «ve«r_fy'1 persons. it cannot be said that the peAtiti.oner_vv.as "put V harassment merel because theiipolice officereavisited his house for an enquiry. If that is acceptedp as harassrrient, no police officer can discharge his dut'ies?ino.r.iirr{ake' enquiries. It is the case of theS.ta'_'te that they'«.hac_t~.credible information about the petitione_r's i3nvo1ve.r:nent~asia syrnpathiser with the LTTE, which called for iflowevelrgpthere is considerable force in the i'vsub:n1.issi:,_;n'.ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner that the Passpo_rt ii():ff_i_cer~if-'V.' the 83* respondent having sought for .recon1}sn.en'dation from the 49* respondent for issue of the ib"A'"P.asAsport, remains unanswered, despite lapse of time, calling necessary directions. The State Government having Dfailed to set out in its Statement of objections as to the ixti reasons for not furnishing a reply to the request of the Passport Officer, it cannot but be said that it has not complied with its obligation. it is very unfair and unjustion the part of the State to unduly withhold a response Passport Officer's request for a recon1mendati.onV_i_"soVas to issue the Passport to the petitioner.