SUNNULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable order or direction against the District Superintendent of Police Lashkar. The petition alleges that on and from. 15 -9 -1951 the constables of Police Station, Kotwali Lashkaar have been visiting the house of the Petitioner in Morwaral Bazar, Lashkar at any odd (sic)rs of day und night and have been insisting that either the Petitioner be found at home whenever they came or that he should intimate to the police autnorities of his movements if he chooses to go cut.

(2.) THE non -applicant in his return admits that a surveillance order has been passed by the Superintendent of police, Gwalior but states that the Petitioner has an undesirable record, that the reports received by police authorities from time, to time that the Petitioner keeps himself associated with, gamblers, house breakers, and thieves and harbours them, has satisfied the Superintendent of police that a regular watch on the Petitioner's movements is necessary; that it is true that in compliance with the said order police officers do watch the movements of the Petitioner; that in that connection casual enquiries are made by police constables. The non -applicant has emphatically denied that police constables or officers threaten, insult or annoy or provoke the Petitioner or his customers or that they prevent him from going anywhere he likes. The non -applicant has also denied the Petitioner's allegation that the police require him to remain at his house. Under Article 226 Constitution of India a petition can be entertained only for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. That the words 'for any others purpose' refer to the enforcement of any legal right has been held in several cases. In Bagaram Tuloule v. The State of Bihar : AIR 1950 Pat 387 (FB)(A), Meredith C.J. observed as follows:

(3.) IT is alleged by the Petitioner that under the pretext of the surveillance order police authority insist on his staying at home and also interfere with his custom. These facts have been specially denied by the non -applicant. As the fact are in issue no mandamus can lie. 'Lilawati Mutatkar v. The State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1952 Mad 105 (D), it has held by this Court that when facts are in dis(sic) no Mandamus can issue.