ANTONIO SEBASTIAO MERVYN Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks an enquiry into incidents from 28-4-1994 to 1-5-1994, a direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the guilty officers and claims compensation for the wrong done to him.

(2.) The factual context, in which the petitioner was required to approach this Court, about which there can be no dispute, is as under: the petitioner, an employee of Public works Department, is owner of a property, in part whereof, respondent No. 9, a driver with the police department, resides. Respondent no. 9 filed a suit for a mandatory injunction, directing Public Works Department to release a water connection, without joining the petitioner as a party. Civil Court granted a temporary mandatory injunction on 31-3-1994 directing that water connection be provided within 30 days. On 28-4-1994, when Public works Department's employee went to provide connection through the petitioner's property, the petitioner obstructed and snatched pickaxe from a Public Works Department's employee. On complaint of the employee, respondent No. 4, p. S. I. Shirwaikar registered an offence. The petitioner too went to police station to lodge a report. He was arrested.

(3.) We have heard both the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and respondent number 4. We have also heard learned government Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, first, contended that the petition is barred by the principles of res judicata. since come of the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition, had already been decided by this Court and other issues had not be raised by him in the earlier petition. We do not see as to how the petition is barred by the principle of res judicata or even constructive res judicata. since the grievance of the petitioner, namely, that his human rights were breached by being arrested and handcuffed without any justification, is yet to be redressed. We may point out that in the judgment dated 14-1-98, by which the earlier petition was disposed of, liberty was specifically reserved for the petitioner to approach appropriate forum if his claim for compensation was not decided. Since virtually none of his claims were decided, we find that the petitioner had justification to approach this Court by the present petition.