GORRELA DURGA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Public Interest Litigation (PIL) became a necessity and the need of the hour to take up the cause of those sections of the society who cannot knock the doors of the Court due to their poverty and ignorance. Some persons who felt it as a social obligation to take up the cause of suffering people took initiative and brought the grievances of the poor and the suffering people to the notice of the superior Court by way of PIL and the Courts have also entertained those PILs to mitigate the injustice done to those sections of the people. May be in case of bonded labour or under -trial prisoners or children or street dwellers, the Courts recognized them as citizens of this Country and tried to protect their fundamental and other civil rights. Of course, it is also a fact that few persons, with a view to wreck vengeance, resorted to file PIL and some others for the purpose of publicity in media and in some cases, unscrupulous litigants tried to use this facility to blackmail some persons for selfish gains. But however, where it appears that the issue involved pertains to the rights of the weaker sections of the society, women, children or where the interest of the society at large is involved or where the issues like national economy, exploitation of natural resources, protection of environment are involved or specific corruption charges against the higher officials or politicians etc., have been made, irrespective of the fact as to the person who approached the Courts, for the purpose of upholding the truth and the rule of law and ultimately in the interest of the society and the nation, the Courts should and must interfere. Ultimately justice has to be done. JUSTICE - as enshrined in our Constitution; JUSTICE - according to well established principles and keeping in view the objects of the relevant constitutional provisions and the Acts and also the aspirations of the people of this Country. We have to keep in mind the noble customs and traditions of the great judicial institutions. Of course, where it appears that the person approaching the Court by filing the PIL is an unscrupulous litigant and who had not approached the Court with clean hands or filed PIL only to satisfy his personal vendetta and where the interest of the society and the nation or the protection of the fundamental rights of any citizens or specific corruption charges are not involved, the Courts must refuse to entertain the PIL.

(2.) COMING to the facts of this case, the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Reserve Police Constable in Krishna District on 14.06.1970, and after completion of basic training, he was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., Hyderabad on deputation on 10.01.1974. Later he was repatriated to Krishna District on 06.11.197. Afterwards, he was transferred to Intelligence Wing, Hyderabad on deputation on 31.05.1977. In the mean time, he was transferred to civil police and underwent training at P.R.S. Vizianagaram. Then, he was repatriated to C.B.C.I.D., Hyderabad and relieved in Intelligence Wing on 05.06.1984. Subsequently, he was promoted as temporarily officiating Head Constable with effect from 15.06.1984 and transferred to Anti Corruption Bureau from C.B.C.I.D. on deputation on 09.01.1985. Then he was repatriated to Krishna District from Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad on 12.11.1987. Later he was brought on to list of approved probationers with effect from 22.04.1988 and was transferred to A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad on deputation on 12.04.1989. Later on, he was promoted as Sub -Inspector of Police on temporary basis with effect from 16.03.1990, and then repatriated to Krishna District from A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad on 01.09.1994. Then, he was transferred to Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on deputation on 15.09.1994. Again he was deputed to A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad, on 20.06.1998. He was then repatriated to Krishna District on 08.06.2000. Again he was deputed on to Vigilance and Enforcement, MCH, Hyderabad on deputation for a period of three years and he joined there on 15.06.2002. On 07.03.2005, he was repatriated to Krishna District from the Vigilance and Enforcement Cell, MCH, Hyderabad. One of the allegations made against the petitioner is that he refused to receive the relieving orders when he was relieved from Vigilance and Enforcement Department, MCH, Hyderabad. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not relieved from the Vigilance and Enforcement Cell of the third respondent by the fifth respondent.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the third respondent is that the employees of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad working in Vigilance & Enforcement Cell have submitted a joint representation dated 07.03.2005 to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, complaining about the harassment of the petitioner and his corrupt activities. The Home Guards working on deputation with Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad have also complained that the petitioner was indulging in threatening and demanding bribe and in some instances, he is resorting to surprise check on the Home guards personnel and making out false cases against them stating that they are possessing excess amount than the amounts collected through Challans and they requested for an enquiry into the matter and do justice to them.