BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that the respondent No.2­Police Inspector of Satellite Police Station has failed to register a first information report for protecting the property of the Central Government, which is standing for the last more than two decades. The Assistant General Manager (BP) of the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the said relief. It is his say that on March 02, 2016, the persons who are arraigned as accused reached the subject land along with J.C.B. machines/ vehicles and labour force and not only they have demolished the compound wall, but they have started damaging the other properties of the center. The petitioner is a senior officer of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The petitioner­Company is also regularly paying municipal taxess for the last more than two decades. It is pointed out from various documents that the ownership of the subject land is that of the Central Government.

(2.) Shri R.C. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner had chosen to communicate the said aspect by way of a written complaint to the Satellite Police Station to register the first information report against the Ganesh Housing Corporation as the person who had come on site was the Site Engineer of Ganesh Housing Corporation. It is further urged that nearly three neem trees out of total nine old neem trees have been cut down by the said persons without obtaining any prior permission. He has further submitted that necessary steps have been taken for pursuing the matter on the civil side also. It is his say that though cognizable offence is made out, his first information report is not being registered.

(3.) Both the sides have been heard. This Court has also taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It would be beneficial to regurgitate the relevant paragraph of the said decision, which reads as under :