ANGANI SATHIRAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to delete the names of the petitioners in the annexure to G.O.Ms. No. 1368 dated 21st December, 1964 and G.O.Ms. No. 1338 dated 13th July, 1965. It arises in the following circumstances. Five villages were declared by the first Government Order to be in a disturbed state, and consequently, one head constable and 8 constables were posted originally for six months, which period was subsequently extended to another one year by the second notification. The first notification fays that the expenses involved in such posting shall be recovered from the persons whose names appear in the annexure to the said Government Order while those, whose names do not appear, were exempted from the payment of such punitive coits. The Second Government Order extended the period by one year. The petitioners contend that their names have been wrongly included in the annexure to the Government Order since they are not responsible for the conditions created in those villages which compelled the Government to impose the punitive police force.

(2.) It is now not in doubt that a mandamus is a discretionary remedy and cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor it can be issued as a matter of course. In order to successfully obtain such a relief, the petitioners have to show that the respondent has a statutory public duty to perform or refrain from performing and that the petitioners approached the authority concerned to di charge that public duty or forbear from performing the duty, and thirdly that the officer has refused to so perform or abstain from performing Unless these three things exist, it is obvious that no mandamus can be issued In this case, all the three things, in my opinion, are patently absent.

(3.) Section 15 of the Police Act is in the following terms: " (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government by proclamation to be notified in the Official Gazette, and in such other manner as the State Government shall direct, to declare that any area subject to its authority has been found to be in a disturbed or dangerous state, or that from the conduct of the inhabitants of such area, or of any class or section of them, itis expedient to increase the number of police. (2) It shall thereupon be lawful for the Inspector General of Police or other officer authorised by the State Government to employ any police force in addition to the ordinary fixed complement to be quartered in the area specified in such proclamation as aforesaid. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of this section, the cost of such additional police force shall be borne by the inhabitants of such areas described in the proclamation. (4) The Magistrate of the district, after such enquiry as he may deem necessary, shall apportion such cost among the inhabitants who are, as aforesaid, liable to bear the same and who shall not have been exempted under the next succeeding sub-section. Such apportionment shall be made according to the Magistrate's Judgment of the respective means within such area of such inhabitants. (5) It shall be lawful for the State Government by order to exempt any person or class or section of such inhabitants from liablity to bear any portion of such cost. (6) Every proclamation issued under sub-section (i) of this section shall state the period for which it is to remain in force, but it may be withdrawn at any time or continued from time to time for a further period or periods as the State Government may in each case think fit to direct. Explanation.-for the purposes of this section, ' inhabitant' shall include persons who themselves or by their agents or servants occupy or hold land or other immovable property within such area and landlords who themselves or by their agents or servants collect rent direct from rayats or occupiers in such area, notwithstanding that they do not actually reside therein."