DURGA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Durga Prasad who is a resident of village Sisaiya, Police Station Izatnagar, District Bareilly.

(2.) THE affidavit in support of the petition has been filed by one Murari Lal, a resident of village kesarpur, police station Isatnagar, district Bareilly. A riot took place in village Kesarpur on 23-3-1951. A large number of Hindus, including the petitioner, was arrested and the papers were sent to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Bareilly for enquiry. We are, however, not concerned with those proceedings. As a result of the riot, a notification was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15, Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861), declaring village Kesarpur and certain other villages in Police Circle Izatnagar and village Saidpur within Police Circle Earadari in the district of Bareilly to be in a disturbed state. This proclamation was to remain in force for a period of five months. As a result of this notification, additional police force had to be sent to these villages. The cost of this additional police force was made payable by the inhabitants of the locality who were responsible for the disturbed state of the area. On the recommendation made by the District magistrate, Bareilly, the State Government passed an order under Sub-section (5) of Section 15, police Act, exempting CD Government servants, (2) Muslims, (3) invalids and (4) persons who neither participated in nor were in any way connected with the riot-ing from the liability of paying the costs of the additional police. A claim was also made for payment of compensation by certain persons who had suffered as a result of the disturbances, and this was done within one month as required by Section 15a, Police Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate made enquiries and found that a sum of Rs. 4,875/- was payable as compensation to the Muslim inhabitants of the locality. The persons exempted from payment of cost of the additional police under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 were also exempted from paying compensation under Sub-section (3) of Section 15a, Police Act. Learned counsel urged that the State Government had passed a most unjust and discriminatory order in exempting muslims from paying costs of the additional police and in awarding them compensation as they were responsible for the disturbed condition of the area. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition or in the rejoinder affidavit, no such allegation has, however, been made. The language used in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Murari Lal filed on 15-11-1951, is in most guarded language and reads as follows:

(3.) THE scheme of Section 15 is that if there is a local disturbance in any part of the country, the state Government can declare that a particular area has been found to be in a disturbed or dangerous state. It can, in the alternative, issue a proclamation that it is expedient to increase the number of police in that particular area due to the conduct of the inhabitants of that area or of any class or section of them. Sub-section (5) of Section 15 then provides as to who should pay for this additional police. It says that the costs for the additional police shall be borne by the inhabitants of the area described in the proclamation. Though the proclamation may cover the inhabitants described in it, the State Government has been given the power under Sub-section (5)of Section 15 to grant exemptions. Sub-section (5) of Section 15, Police Act, reads as follows: