SHEELAM SWAMY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a unique relief couched in general terms. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents

(2.) The petitioner asserts to being the District Secretary of Nalgonda CPI (ML)(L) Party, which is claimed to be a political organization working amongst rural poor, organized and unorganized labour. The petitioner asserts that the Party is not banned either in the State or anywhere else in the country. The petitioner also asserts that respondent Nos. 10 and 11 do not belong to the Party and were not members of the Party at any point of time. The petitioner asserts that the Party has no faith in armed struggle and none of the members carry weapons and the Party is engaged in peaceful and democratic endeavors.

(3.) According to the petitioner, in the first week of November, 2006, when the petitioner was away from the village, he was informed by the family that the police had come in search of him. The petitioner thereafter claims to have gone to the concerned police along with State and Regional Secretaries of the Party and informed them that he is not involved in any crime under any police station. According to the petitioner, two or three days later, the police again sent a word for him and again he explained his position.