MAKHAN SINGH Vs. HARYANA GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Makhan Singh and 86 others residents of village Ruksana, Tehsil Kaithal, District Karnal, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated September 22, 1967, copy of which is appended to this petition as Annexure 'A'.

(2.) The Petitioners are residents and law abiding citizens of village Ruksana, Tehsil Kaithal, District Karnal. Makhan Singh, Petitioner is the Sarpanch of the village and Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are the members of the Panchayat. Petitioner No. 5 is the Lambardar of the village. There were certain civil cases and criminal litigation between Makhan Singh, Petitioner on the one hand and Mansa Singh and Kundan Singh, Petitioners on the other hand, regarding some agricultural land in the village which led to proceedings under Sections 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure, and other cases. However, in the months of July-August on the intervention of the village Panchayat and other respectables of the village, the differences between the two parties were settled, and two criminal cases were actually compromised in Court. However, the Station House Officer and some senior police officers were annoyed with the residents of the village. At their instance a notification dated September 22, 1967, has been issued under Section 15 of the Police Act. The relevant extract from the same is reproduced as under:

(3.) Before passing this order, the Petitioners or other residents of the village had been given no opportunity to convince the concerned authorities that there was no need for increasing the number of the police. In the return, it has been said that there are two factions in the village led by Makhan Singh and Mansa Singh. Now both Makhan Singh and Mansa Singh have jointly filed this petition. No criminal case had been registered in the year 1967. The order has been passed on September 22, 1967. It shows that the village was perfectly peaceful during these nine months of 1967. It is also averred that two criminal cases had been compromised. Even in the year 1966 also, only four cases were registered. Two of them related to the illicit arms, one to the Excise Act and the fourth under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. There was no case involving violence. So, if the Petitioners had been given an opportunity, they would have convinced the authorities that there was no need to post the punitive police force in the village. The principles of natural justice are all pervasive. The language of Section 15 or for that matter the whole of the Police Act does not exclude in terms or by necessary intendment the application of the principles of natural justice. On this scored also the order is liable to be struck down.