P GOWTHAM REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against ajudgment dated 28-7-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.32310 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition fried by the petitioner herein was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant applied for a gun licence before the second respondent. The application was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby he preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by an order 4-9-1996. While dismissing the said appeal, however, it was observed by the Appellate Authority : "Under the circumstances, the Appellate Authority felt that giving a revolver licence to the appellant is fraught with potential serious consequences and would lead only to escalation of violence and crime in the area instead of affording him self protection. Hence the authority fully agreed with the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city once again that it is not desirable to provide the applicant with an arms licence hence dismiss the appeal petition. However, the Appellate Authority advises the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City to provide the appellant necessary security as per the conditions in vogue after assessing the threat perception to the appellant". Pursuant to the observations made by the Appellate Authority, the armed security guard was provided to the writ petitioner. By reason of the order impugned in the writ petition, however, the said facility was withdrawn. When the writ petition came up for admission, a learned single Judge of this Court passed an interim order to the following effect: "There shall be interim direction to 2nd respondent to continue the security guard to the petitioner as provided to him earlier to 13-10-1998 on the same contentions on which it was provided earlier, pending further orders". Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said interim direction, armed security guard was resumed to the petitioner.

(3.) While so, before the learned single Judge, a counter-affidavit was filed wherein a contention was raised that the petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter, that he is settling civil disputes privately misusing the services of armed security officer and that there are two criminal cases pending against him. It was also submitted that a Bill for a sum of Rs.2,68,156f- had also been served upon him. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ application. While doing so, it was observed: "Since the State Exchequer has been mulcted with the cost of providing a security to the petitioner without any warrant therefor and on account only of the interim orders of this Court and since it is an established principle of law that the act of the judicial branch cannot harm any person (actus curiae neminem gravabit) and as the interim orders were issued by this Court. at the instance of the petitioner in circumstances which are now found to have been unwarranted, it is but appropriate to declare that the State is entitled to recover the cost of the security provided to the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 20-11-1998. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the amount so assessed by the respondents and communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of such communication by the respondent. The 2nd respondent shall assess the costs for the provision of such security within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid time".