PERVARAM RAMULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri K. Ravindra Kumar for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents. The petitioner is a former Director General of Police and Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, O.S. No. 183 of 2005 was filed by the third respondent, who was the General Secretary of the A.P. Police Officers Association and Inspector of Police, on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking the relief of damages of Rs. 1 crore with interest against the petitioner and others. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to quash the said suit.

(2.) It is the case of the third respondent in the above suit that with the permission of the Commissioner of Police, he purchased a plot of 500 square yards from Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited in the year 1990 and it appears that some disputes arose with regard to the said society. Crime No. 58 of 2000 was registered against him under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code at Ramgopalpet Police Station and another case in Crime No. 19 of 2001 was also registered against him and he filed a private complaint against the then Assistant Commissioner of Police and others in C.C. No. 1236 of 2001. There were some civil disputes and writ petitions were also pending involving the third respondent. The third respondent was suspended from service in March, 1999. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1989 of 2000 quashed the orders of suspension and in spite of the same, he was not given posting. He was also overlooked for promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police in the years 2000 and 2001. It appears that the order of detention was passed by the writ petitioner in the capacity of District Magistrate under the provisions of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, Act 1 of 1986) on 19.12.2001. The plaint discloses that several allegations were made against various officers in the police department and private individuals. It appears that at the instance of the then Director General and Inspector General, a special report was prepared by the then DCP, DD and on the said report, the petitioner suspended the third respondent on 18.05.2001. Though the third respondent submitted his written statement on 31.10.2001, the petitioner without going through the same, summarily rejected it on 03.01.2002. The representation submitted by the third respondent to the Chief Secretary for review was also rejected on 16.01.2002.

(3.) As per the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government issued G.O.Rt. No. 421, dated 25.01.2002, revoking the detention order and releasing the third respondent on 25.01.2002 from Chanchalguda prison. Ultimately, the third respondent stated in the above suit that the action of the petitioner herein does not form part of official duties or legal orders or discharging of lawful duties with bonafides. The television relay and the press note given by the petitioner on 21.12.2001, gave the impression to the readers as well as to the viewers that the third respondent was a land grabber. The said news was published and the television relay shocked the third respondent, his relatives, friends and acquaintances in the society and office colleagues, subordinates and senior officers in the department. The third respondent in the above suit sought Rs. 1 crore towards damages for loss of reputation, mental agony, illegal detention for 36 days, hardship, reputation of family members and spoiling of health.