NARENDRA LUTHER Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The former Chief Secretary of the State is the appellant. He is a resident of Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and is leading a peaceful retired life evincing interest in literary and cultural pursuits. Himself and his neighbours were being disturbed round the clock with loud noise emanating from the foot of Banjara Hills area within the jurisdiction of Humayun Nagar Police Station. On his complaint, one of the Police Officers from the said Police Station visited him to ascertain where the noise was coming from and thereafter the noise stopped for some time. Again after a few days, noise started in a very loud manner so as to disturb the entire neighbourhood. On 12-10-1995 the petitioner contacted Humayun Nagar Police and complained to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who is the third respondent. But, as there was no relief, the petitioner again contacted the third respondent in the afternoon and the third respondent, instead of taking action, quipped that the noise was coming from a mosque and he could do nothing about it. When the petitioner told him that such noises have been stopped earlier and that he should ensure that the volume was kept within the limits as prescribed under the City Police Act, the third respondent raised his voice and asked him to make a complaint in writing and asked what the wants. The petitioner felt that the third respondent being the responsible Police Officer was not only highly discourteous but disregarded the genuine complaint and thus failed to discharge his statutory duties as Police Officer. The petitioner then kept quiet, but on the next day, he wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police brining to his notice the rude behaviour and inaction of the third respondent and requested him politely to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action against him. The second respondent did not even care to reply or acknowledge the said letter. Waiting for a period of three months, the petitioner again on 29-1-1996 reminded the second respondent about his earlier letter and requested him to take action. The petitioner happened to meet the second respondent at a function and there again he reminded him of his letters and the second respondent told him that he was taking action. But, the second respondent did not bother to acknowledge his letters nor taken any action against the third respondent. As the efforts of the petitioner to move the second respondent, who is a Senior Police Officer and Head of the City Police, failed, he was constrained to address a letter on 7-3-1996 to the Chief Secretary of Government of Andhra Pradesh and requested him to use his good offices to move the second respondent to respond. The Chief Secretary promptly on 12-3-1996 expressed his regret for the attitude of the Commissioner of Police and assured that he would look into the matter. However, the second respondent, after a lapse of six months, presumably on instructions from the Chief Secretary wrote a D.O. letter to the petitioner on 2-4-1996 enclosing a report of third respondent. The allegation in the report that the third respondent has taken immediate action on the first complaint of the petitioner on 12-10-1995 is far from truth and had it been so, there would not have been any further occasion for the petitioner to complain over and again. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition for redressal of his grievance for the insult meted out to him by the inefficient, rude and discourteous subordinate Police Officer hoping for a better system with full of human touch.

(2.) The third respondent in his counter-affidavit denied the allegation of discourteous behaviour on his part. He also denied that he had committed any act of disrespect of misconduct against the petitioner. In fact, on receipt of complaint through telephone on 12-10-1995 from the petitioner, he rushed to the spot with available out-post personnel and checked the nuisance in the entire First Lancer and Masab Tank areas for 45 minutes. But, no noise was heard at that time. Hence, he left instructions to out-post personnel to patrol the areas vigorously and bring the violators to the Police Station for further action. At 12 hours again the third respondent received a phone call from the petitioner that no action was taken on his complaint and the third respondent explained to him about his visit and that they could not notice any voice. However, he instructed the out-post staff to keep a watch on the problem. In fact he had also instructed the Head Constable 3507 to verify about the sound. The complaint of the petitioner has been entered in out- post General Diary of Humayun Nagar Police Station and accordingly relevant entries were made by out-post Head Constable 3507 in the General Diary. The allegation of the third respondent on the contrary is that the petitioner was found in an irritating mood and threatened the third respondent saying that he would report against him to the Director General of Police and cut off the telephone while they were talking at 1200 hours on 12-10-1995. The second respondent in his counter - affidavit also states that he received letter dated 13-10-1995 and 29-1-1996 addressed by the petitioner. He called for the explanation of the third respondent after receipt of first letter dated 13-10-1995. The third respondent submitted his explanation and having been satisfied with the same, he sent a D.O. letter dated 2-4-1996 together with the explanation. He denied that no action was initiated by him. It is denied that there is any misconduct or negligence of duties on the part of the third respondent or himself.

(3.) On the above facts, the learned Single Judge who disposed of the writ petition, felt that the grievance of the petitioner appears to be a reaction of a highly placed sensitive person being a retired Chief Secretary and he might have been offended by the loud voice of the third respondent. The second respondent has called for the explanation of the third respondent and he was satisfied with the same and as such, no motive could be attributed to the second respondent in coming to that conclusion. The learned Judge concluded that a writ of mandamus would issues only when there is a statutory violation or violation of principles of natural justice in performing the statutory duty by any authority and as such, how the police should behave with the citizens is not a matter for the Court to determine in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the writ petition was dismissed taking the above view, this writ appeal by the petitioner.