P.V.PADMA Vs. PRL SECY, HOME DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 in not registering the complaint dated 11.05.2017 of the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to register the complaint.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of late Venkateswara Rao. Her case is that her husband Venkateswara Rao was working as Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) in Dr. Narla Tata Rao Thermal Power Station (VTPS), Vijayawada. On 11.11.2008 at 10.00 A.M. while he was in duty, he died in the accident occurred in the conveyor belt. The petitioner's grievance is that some of the officials and workers who were enemically disposed towards her husband killed him and created the incident as accident. Her version is that 30 minutes prior to the incident, the workers and officials quarrelled with her husband. The officials called her husband to the work without issuing LC letter and asked him to climb into the conveyor belt to repair the same and while he was still working on the conveyor belt, they started the conveyor belt and thereby her husband fell down, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Though two other co-workers who received injuries and some other persons witnessed the incident, all of them did not speak the truth for fear of the officials. Her allegation is that all the 15 witnesses, 4 societies, higher officials, staff, Vigilance officers, Security officers, Guards, Coal plant SE, staff and other persons, higher officers colluded with each other, they removed the body of her husband and shifted to VTPS Board Hospital and kept there till evening and thereafter lodged a police complaint with fabricated facts. The VTPS officials have not allowed the press and police staff inside the VTPS premises. As an eyewash, the officials have transferred the concerned officials to another plant. Her case is that due to the negligence of the officials the petitioner lost her husband. After 32 hours of the accident and on completion of all the process, the officials handed over the dead body for cremation to the petitioner and her relations. The petitioner came to know that the medical officials have removed some parts from her husband's body, but due to the bereavement she could not think of lodging any complaint.

(3.) Opposing the writ petition, learned Government Pleader for Home would argue that the petitioner's husband P.Venkateswara Rao worked as Junior Plant Attendant in Dr. NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam and on 11.11.2008 while himself and two others were attending repair works on the conveyor belt-II, the conveyor belt suddenly moved accidentally and thereby the petitioner's husband and two others fell down and while the remaining two persons suffered minor injuries, P.Venkateswara Rao suffered grievous injuries and died when he was shifted to the hospital. In respect of the said incident, on the statement given by one of the injured, the police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.358/2008 under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC and after investigation laid charge sheet against A1 & A2, who are the Assistant Additional Engineer and Additional Assistant Engineer of MCC-II, C.H.P-II respectively of VTPS. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the offence and registered the same as C.C.No.73/2011 and conducted trial and after completion of trial acquitted the accused as per the judgment dated 01.12.2014. Producing the copy of judgment learned Government Pleader would submit that the police indeed have registered the crime and investigated the same and filed charge sheet and the case was also ended in acquittal and therefore, the petitioner who filed this writ petition about 9 years after the incident and 3 years after the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011, cannot maintain the writ petition at this belated stage. He would further argue that if she was aggrieved by the judgment in C.C.No.73/2011, she should have filed Criminal Appeal and prosecuted the matter. However, without following the said procedure she cannot maintain the writ petition. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.