INDIA MATCH HOUSE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and their subordinates to exercise their statutory powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Madras City Police Act, to deal with the trespassers referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and restore to the petitioner, possession of premises No. 843, Anna salai, Madras, after removing the trespassers. THE basis for the prayer as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is as follows: THE petitioner was a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative society Ltd. , which is a society registered under the Cooperative Societies act, in the premises referred to above on a rent of Rs. 157. 50 per mensem. THE society had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in the City Civil Court, and the same was pending. While so, on 20-5-1986, about 7-30 to 7-45 p. m. the president of the Society by name Anakaputhur Ramalingarn who was a member of the Legislative Council, at that time, went to the shop of the petitioner with about 15 to 20 Musclemen and two constables from Chintadripet police station. While the constables stood as guards outside the shop, the rest entered forcibly and boldly threw out the uncle of the deponent Sri Krishinchand Mirpuri and the watchman who were the only inmates of the shop at that time and locked the premises with the goods of the petitioner inside. THE uncle of the deponent and the watchman went to the police station at Chintadripet, and reported orally to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who instead of reducing the Complaint into writing and registering it, went out of the station immediately. After finding out that the Sub-Inspector did not go the spot of occurrence of the offence, the deponent's uncle and watchman gave telegrams to (1) THE Commissioner of police, Madras, (2) THE Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, (3) THE Director-General of Police, Madras, (4) THE Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Handloom Co-operative society and (5) THE Inspector of Police, Chintadripet Police Station, on 21-5-1986, a written Complaint was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Madras. A personal representation was made by the uncle of the deponent to the commissioner of Police, who promised to take action. On the night of 22nd May, several lorries were brought and all the furniture and fans, etc. , were removed. Again a written Complaint was sent through a lawyer to the director-General of Police, who promised to take suitable action in the matter. On the same day, copies of the Complaint were sent by registered post to the commissioner of Police and to the Inspector of Police, Chintadripet Police station. Finding that no action was taken and that the trespassers were making alterations to the shop to suit their needs under the protection of two police constables the deponent's uncle accompanied by a lawyer went to the chintadripet Police station on 24-5-1986, and gave another signed copy of the complaint dated 21-5-1986, with a covering letter to the Inspector who received the same under acknowledgement and promised to take action. THE deponent gave reminder telegrams on 31. 5. 1986 to the Director General of Police, the commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police. No action was taken and thus the police officers had failed to perform the duties enjoined on them by law. THE respondent should be directed by this Court to take immediate and appropriate action in the matter.

(2.) THE writ petition was filed in this Court on 16. 6. 1986 and rule nisi was issued on 19. 6. 1986. THE respondents were served on 30. 6. 1986. THE first respondent filed a counter affidavit on behalf of both the respondents on 27. 4. 1988. No explanation has been attempted by the respondents for the unduly long interval between the date of service of the writ petition and the filing of the counter affidavit. This circumstance assumes considerable importance as the deponent of the counter affidavit has assumed charge as commissioner of Police only recently and his knowledge is only from the records. THE officers who were in charge at the time of the alleged occurrence and continued to be so till recently did not choose to apprise this Court with the facts within their personal knowledge in spite of the fact that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition referred to them by their names.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. Just as in the case of Palanisami v. The Superintendent of Police, Rural, Coimbatore and another, 1983 L. W. Crl. 34 (S. N.), the investigation in this case also should be made by some authority other than there respondents. It is also made clear that no officer who had any connection with this case earlier should take part in the investigation. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus will issue directing the crime Branch C. I. D. to investigate the Complaints of the petitioner dated 20-5-1986 and 21-5-1986 in accordance with law. The rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.