DULAL SAMANTA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HOWRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is Dulal Samanta. He asks for a writ of mandamus restraining the operation of the order dated 28-7-1954, by which the District Magistrate of Howrah informed him:

(2.) As will be seen this period of six months expired in January, 1055. The petition to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was made on 25-1-1955 and a Rule was obtained on that date. This was about three days before the expiry of the period of six months for which the petitioner was appointed as a special police officer. Since then the lime has long expired. From that point of view there is no utility of this application today. The reason why the application is being pursued today is that certain prosecutions were launched under the Police Act and those prosecutions are now pending against the petitioner. If he succeeds in this Rule, then those prosecutions would fall. One should have thought that the prosecutions should have been before the Magistrate dealing with these proceedings and, if unsuccessful there to move this High Court by way of criminal revision and not by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The short facts of this case may be stated here for a better appreciation of the points involved in this application. The petitioner is a resident of village Dasbhaga in Ulubcria in the district of Howrah where he cultivates 2 1/2 bighas of land a part of which is used as a Pan Baroj. According to him the income from the land is not enough and he, therefore, works as a day labourer by selling green vegetables. The petitioner's family consists of six members and he is said to be the only adult male earning member. In March 1954 the District Magistrate of IIowrah served a notice upon him appointing him a special police officer under Section 17 of the Police Act for a period of three months from that date to wateh the railway track of the Eastern Railway from Chengail bridge to Kalsapa railway bridge and to report to the officer in charge of Ulu-beria police station. It is said that the petitioner protested because he had to perform duty every day from 8 P. M. to 10 P. M. and 10 P. M. to 4 A. M. on alternative days. He complained that this adversely affected his health and he, therefore, asked for exemption from police duty by his applications dated the 15th April and the 5th May 1954. To complete his story he says that his wife was ailing and required nursing. The District Magistrate referred his applications for exemption to the Superintendent of Police, Howrah, who by his order dated 27-11-1954 rejected his prayer and said that the officer in charge should take action under Section 19 of the Police Act in case the petitioner failed to perform his duty. According to the petitioner he was not exempted and his duty continued for a period of three months but he admits that he made one default for which he was prosecuted and fined within that period.