DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF MIDNAPORE Vs. DHANANJOY NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are as follows:

(2.) By an order of the District Magistrate of Midnapore dated 13th February, 1958 the respondent, Dhananiov Navak was appointed as a Special Police Officer under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861. Section 17 of the said Art runs as follows

(3.) The learned Judge points out that the first three grounds had already been negatived by this Court in Dulal Samanta v. District Magistrate. Howrah, A regards the fourth point he came to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice had no relevance. He, however, held that on the fifth point the applicant was entitled to relief and, therefore he made the Rule absolute and appropriate writs were issued for quashing the petitioner's appointment dated 13th Februany 1958 as a special police officer as also the criminal proceedings in connection with the same We are unable to agree with either the rearming given by the learned Judge in the court below or the conclusion arrived at by him. We must proceed on the assumption that action 17 wat intra vires and that the order was not mala fide, since nothing to the contrary has been found in the learned Judge's judgment Section 17 does not require any enquiry to be made by the District Magistrate. Naturally, as an administrative officer he would have to be satisfied that the requisition made by the Superintendent of Police was bona fide The words "reasonably apprehended" are used in Section 17. The order might, have been challenged on the ground that there was no reasonable ground for apprehension and that on the facts, no reasonable person could have any apprehension But no such ground has been advanced. If such a point was raised there the Court would have jurisdiction to go into the matter. Here, however not only has the order not been challenged from that point of view, but on the fact:- it seems that the apprehension is legitimate Year after year wagon breaking and theft took place on the railways and the police foret available was found to be inadequate It is, therefore, a public duty on behalf of all critizens to come to the aid of there persons who are in charge of the enforcement of law and order Here, it was the statutory duty of the said respondent to help the police But in spite of this, he not only refused to comply with the order but has done so repeatedly, in spite of repeated criminal proceedings having been instituted against him The reasonable conclusion is that he is but upon flouting the law. The learned Judge in the Court below says that the existence of some sort of emergency should be proved and he does not seem to think that such an emergency existed. With respect we differ from him It is but common knowledge that railway thefts are increasing and where the police authorities are asking for more policemen, the Court cannot presume that there existed no emergency or any apprehension of breach of the peace was unjustified In out opinion, on the facts of this case all the ingredients of Section 17 have been satisfied. There is no reason whatsoever to hold that the order was contrary to law.