GOTTIPATI MURALI MOHAN Vs. JALAGAM VENGALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O.S. No.26 of 1978.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff. 1st defendant is Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, 2nd defendant is Sri Jalagam Vengal Rao, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, 3rd defendant is the District Collector Mr. Santhanam and 4th defendant is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff is an advocate and his father is also a senior lawyer. The plaintiff is a close follower of Sri Jaya Prakash Narayan, It is his case that on 12-6-1985, the High Court of Allahabad has declared the election of 1st defendant as invalid and she was also debarred for contesting the election for six years. Emergency was declared in the country with the active connivance of the 1st defendant so as to protect her office and status. Number of democrats were arrested on 25th and 26th June, 1975. The plaintiff was arrested by the police on 26-6-1975 in pursuance of the detention order passed by the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff and other detenus were confined to Central Prison, Rajahmundry and they had a horrible experience in the jail, which has no proper accommodation at all. On. 29-6-1975, the grounds of detention were communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed writ petition seeking writ of Habeas corpus which was dismissed by the High Court. The first detention order was revoked and the 4th defendant passed another Detention order on 1-9-1975. The said detention order was again challenged in the High Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff was released by the, High Court on 9-10-1975. Again their detention order was passed on 10-10-1975 and finally he was released on 10-2-1976. Thereafter, he resumed practice again. The plaintiff issued a notice demanding damages for the illegal detention. Since there was no reply, the suit against the defendants claiming damages for a sum of Rs.20,000/ with interest from the date of the suit was filed. In support of the claim for damages, it is averred in the plaint that he is a practising Advocate in Vijayawada from 1959 on civil side. He was having considerable practice. He also participates in the cultural, educational and political activities. The 2nd defendant was set ex parte. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement denying the liability of damages. It was also stated that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit is also barred for misjoinder of parties. It was stated that the 3rd defendant acted as Collector and District Magistrate and on information received by him that the plaintiff has been indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and having satisfied issued an order by virtue of exercising of the power conferred on him by clause (a) of sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of the Act 26 of 1971. Thus, he has discharged his duties in good faith and he is not liable for any damages. The cause of action alleged to have arisen on 25-6-1975 is not correct when the Emergency was revoked. The suit is also not maintainable in his personal capacity and thus he stated that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Defendant No.4 also filed a written statement denying the claim for damages and that .the 3rd defendant acted in pursuance of the discharge of his duties under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act 26 of 1971) (for brief the 'Act') and under Section 16 of the Act if any act is done in good faith, no suit lies for damages. Basing on the respective pleadings, the lower Court framed the following issues: