B ASWARTHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this is appeal and the petition, the validity of a proclamation made under Section 15 of the Police AL-I (Act V of 1861.) so far as it relates to the apportionment and exemptions made uder Sub Section (3), (4) and (5) of Section 15 of the said Ad is challenged as offending the fundamental right guaranteed under Article ]4 of the Constitution of India. The main facts that led to the finding of this appeal and the petition are the same There me two factions in the village of Narayanareddipalli. Tadipatri taluk. Anantapur District. The Station House Officer. Muchukota put up security eases M. C. Nos, 15/63 and 16/63 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anantapnr, against the members belonging to the two factions. The appellants in the appeal seven in number, were respondents 3 to 7, 9 and 11 in M. C. 15/63. The petitioners in W. P. No. 1535/64 were also respondents in the said case. There were in all 38 respondents in M. C, 15/63. It was alleged against the appellants and the other respondents in M. C. 15/63 that they belong to the party of Thollamadugn Narayana Reddi, who is the leader of one of the factions in Narayanareddipalli village and who is the 1st petitioner in W. P. No. 1535/64. The proceedings against the seven appellants in the Writ Appeal and two others were separated and enquired into as M. C. 33/63 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anantapnr and ultimately, all of them were discharged under Section 119 Cr. P. C. The other respondents in M. C. 15/63 gave security for keeping the peace. The persons belonging to the opposite party were the respondents in M. C. 16/63. It is alleged in the affidivat filed in support of Writ Petition No. 1630/64 out of which this writ appeal arises that the appellants have no part and are not responsible for the disturbed conditions in the village and ye( the Government have unjustly and arbitrarily made them liable for payment of cost of the additional Police Force, while exempting all the factionists in M. C. 16/63 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Anantapnr. In the counter-affidavit filed in this appeal, ii is admitted that the appellants were discharged; but it is suggested that this was due to the fact that the only witness was the Head-Constable, who gave the first report and that it was not possible in factious village to get any independent evidence. It is alleged that the appellants are strong supporters of T. Narayanareddi. It is also staled that Vykun-tam Chinna Narayanareddi. the leader of the opposite parly and Vykuntam Venkata Subbaiah belonging to the same party were murdered on 18-9-1968, the cases relating (hereto being Crime Nos. 43 and 44 of 1963 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 I. P. C., road with Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. But it is admitted in this counter-affidavit that the appellants in this appeal are not involved in the murder eases. But it is asserted that. since the appellants have participated in the incidents, which led to the filing of the security cases, M. C. No.s. 15 and 16 of 1963, they are active factionists belonging to the party of T. Narayanareddi. In paragraph 4 of this counter-affidavit, it is admitted that it is a fact that punitive tax is being collected from the partisans belonging to the parly of T. Narayanareddi, as the investigation into the cases disclosed that the party of T. Narayanareddi have again and again been the aggressors in the faction and have been responsible for the unrest in the area and that the other party, who have suffered three murders at the hands of T. Narayanareddis party without retaliation, have not been responsible tor the disturbed conditions that have made the imposition of the additional Police Force necessary. It is further stated that, since both the leaders of the opposite party, Vykuntam Chinna Narayanureddi and his brother-in-law. Vykuntam Venkata Subbaiah were murdered their party became weak and so has not been indulging in any acts of violence, and that aggressors and victims cannot be equated on the same level for imposition of punitve tax. It Is on this ground that the imposition of punitive tax only on the persons, who are alleged to belong to the party headed by T. Narayanareddi is sought to be justified. It is common ground that the persons belonging to the opposite faction, who were respondents in M. C. 16/63 are exempted from payment of this punitive tax.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 1630/64 was heard by Gopalakrishnan Nair J. and was dismissed on 8-10-61 The main ground on which the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Learned Judge was that, unless this Court is able to take evidence and arrive at a finding of fact that the petitioners do not belong to one faction or the other, it will not be possible to grant relief to them and that this cannot properly be done in writ proceedings. The petitioners in W, P. No. 1630/64, therefore, filed this writ appeal.

(3.) Nine of the other respondents in M. C. 15/63, who are alleged to belong to the party headed by T. Narayanareddi, are the petitioners in W. P. No. 1535/64. The main ground on which this writ petition was tiled was that the petitioners aroup alone was singled out for the levy and collection of the punitive tax, while the persons belonging to the opposite group and who were involved in as many as five cases in the year 1963 causing much unrest in the village by their acts of violence, are exempted. Thus, the Government discriminated between the persons alleged to belong to the party of T. Narayanareddi and the persons belonging to the opposite party. The manner in which the power of exemption is exercised by the Government, is, therefore, an abuse of the power and is mala fide. In this Writ Petition, the Government filed a counter-affidavit, sworn to by Sri P. D. Lakshminarayana, Assistant Secretary to Government, General Administration Department. The history of the factions between the two parties, one headed by T. Narayanareddi and the other by Vykuntam Chinna Narayanareddi is traced. It is stated that the proceedings against the party of Vykuntam Narayanareddi were pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anantapur. In this counter-affidavit, also, it is pointed out, that Vykuntam Chinna Narayanareddi and Vykuntam Venkata Subbaiah were murdered. Thus it is alleged that despite all possible preventive measures being taken viz., stationing of local and reserve Police, action under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and frequent visits by Police Officers of all ranks, the factions have not abated, but that on the other hand, tension between the parties is very high and the partisans of T. Narayanareddi have committed double murder. It is asserted in this counter-affidavit also that the partymen of T. Narayanareddi have been the aggressors from the start of the faction in the village and have o far murdered three persons of the other party. It is for this reason that only the 38 persons belonging to the party of T. Narayanareddi are made liable for the punitive tax to meet the expenses incurred for the posting of the additional Police Force and all others including the persons belonging to the opposite party were exempted. The order of the Government, the validity of which is in question in these cases is as follows:-