J P RATAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. P. RATAN, the petitioner is a taxi driver and resident of H. No. 225, Lal bazaar, Trimulgherrry, Secunderabad. He is allegedly approached the army authorities at MCEME on 20. 08. 2006 and informed that the taxi driven by him had been hired by the army person viz. , Nb. Sub. Nagender Singh Yadav. He also stated to have informed the purpose for which Nb. Sub. Nagender Singh Yadav engaged his taxi. The purpose was to commute two foreign nationals in his taxi from railway station to a married accommodation in military area and later to the airport. He is said to have identified the person who hired the taxi as Nb. Sub. Nagender singh Yadav and the residence as the one allotted to Cfn. Devender Kumar, a neighbour of Nb. Sub. Nagender Singh Yadav. A Court of Enquiry took up investigation on the directions of the Headquarters, Southern Command, Pune. The petitioner deposed before the Court of Enquiry and narrated the complete sequence of events as to his taxi being hired by Nb. Sub. Nagender Singh Yadav for commuting two foreign nationals to a marriage accommodation in a military area allotted to Cfn. Devender Kumar. The Court of Enquiry found Nb. Sub. Nagender singh Yadav and Cfn. Devender Kumar guilty of maintaining contacts with foreign nationals against the security instructions specifically prohibiting armed forces personnel from such conduct. A disciplinary action was ordered against the accused armed personnel. According to the petitioner, Subedar B. Francis xavier, HQ MC EME, Secunderabad-4th respondent came with a posse of armed personnel in the month of October, 2007 to his residence and asked him to accompany him to the Colonel Administration, Military College of EME, trimulgherry, Secunderabad-2nd respondent. The petitioner expressed his inability to comply with his request owing to his prior professional engagements. The 4th respondent allegedly took the petitioner to Colonel R. Sitharamaiah-3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent introduced himself to the petitioner as Colonel Administration, Military College of EME and asked him whether he could recognize or know anything about the two armed personnel standing in his office (i. e. 2nd respondent's office ). The petitioner states that he denied of any acquaintance with those personnel. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent handed over the petitioner to other army officer, who took him to a separate room, where the army officers allegedly tortured him physically and mentally and forced him to put his signatures on certain blank, partly filled/ written/typed papers. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent accompanied by civil police personnel from Trimulgherry Police Station started making visits to his house frequently to take him to the Police Station and therefrom to the 2nd respondent establishment. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 07. 11. 2007 to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad complaining of illegal assistance rendered by police personnel to the army personnel. Thereafter, 3rd respondent sent summons requiring the presence of the petitioner before him through XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for his appearance at the trial of some army personnel on 21. 09. 2007. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 14. 12. 2007 to the 3rd respondent denying of his having any personal acquaintance or interaction or knowledge about persons mentioned in the summons. He also sent a sworn statement in the form of a notarized affidavit dated 27. 12. 2007 specifically mentioning that he had no knowledge about anything concerning any army personnel against whom 4th respondent was forcing him to make a statement. After a gap of about six months, the 4th respondent herein made a visit to the petitioner's residence on the night of 2/3-07. 2008 along with a posse of armed military personnel and threatened the petitioner to remain in city on 21. 07. 2008 on which date he is required to be produced in Court Martial Proceedings initiated against some army personnel. It is the version of the petitioner that frequent visits of the 4th respondent to his house were to make him to speak as tutored by him (4th respondent) in the Court Martial Proceedings. The petitioner filed the writ petition assailing the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in compelling him to be present before the Court Martial Proceedings without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 135 (3) of the Army Act, 1950.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission, Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned standing Counsel of Central Government received notice on behalf of the respondents. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. Col. R. Sitaramaiah, colonel Administration, HQ MCEME, Secunderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. The circumstances under which the petitioner came to be summoned to appear before the Court Martial have been detailed in the counter-affidavit. The allegation made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit that respondents 3 and 4 are compelling him to speak as tutored by them has been denied. For better appreciation, I may refer para. 5 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder:

(3.) THE petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner had already offered to present himself in the Court Martial proceedings and sought permission to be accompanied by his counsel as a safety against undue harassment, pressure and torture.