SAIYED IBRAHIM PRESIDENT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner through the President of the PWD Employees Union under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India with a prayer as prayed for interalia to issue appropriate writ, order or direction holding the action of the respondent no. 4 of subjecting the petitioner to an illegal search and interrogation on 2.12.2006 as violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also for the compensation and/or punitive damages to the petitioner in a sum of Rs 5 lakhs for causing violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights as alleged on the ground stated in the memo of the petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the President of the PWD Employees Union which is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act , 1926. The petitioner in his capacity of President of the PWD employees Union had filed hundreds of petitions and therefore, it is contended that on 2.12.2006, the respondent no. 4 had telephoned the petitioner and asked him to remain present at the Bardoli police station. The petitioner was not communicated as to why he has been asked to appear before the respondent no. 4. Thereafter the petitioner was told that he was required to answer certain questions put to him in connection with some complaint. The piece of paper was never shown to the petitioner and when the allegations were read out, he was shocked due to the allegations levelled against him. After the said incident, the petitioner was immediately informed by the present respondent no. 4 that his residential premises in Surat were required to be searched and accordingly it was searched. It is the case of the petitioner that when he had driven back to his house from Bardoli police station and entered his residential premises, no warrant or authority in writing was shown to the petitioner by the present respondent no. 4 and his officers. Therefore, the Union had asked for the copy of the panchnama, complaint and other papers and the copy of the letter is produced at Annexure A. Respondent no. 4 expressed his inability vide communication at Annexure B and therefore, the petitioner gave legal notice dated 31.1.2007 and in response thereto reply was filed dated 7.2.202007 stating that the subject matter of the notice falls within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 4 and accordingly the grievance of the petitioner had not been redressed which has led to the filing of the petition on the ground stated in the memo of the petition. It is sought to be contended that inter alia branding the petitioner as a terrorist having links/connections with terrorist organisation in Pakistan has affected his dignity and esteem. Therefore, the reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Ors., 2007(1) SCALE 72, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that :

(3.) It is contended that the image of the petitioner in the society has lowered which has affected his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further it is contended that the action of respondent no. 4 subjecting the petitioner to a illegal search and interrogation is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made to other judgment of the Apex Court .