RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition forbidding the opposite parties, namely the State of Rajasthan, and the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, from recovering from the applicant the cost of maintenance of additional police force at Nanan, and from taking possession of the applicant's jagir for that purpose.

(2.) THE case put forward by the applicant is this: He is the jagirdar of village Nanan in Tahsil Bilara. In 1948, the Dhani of one Prabhudayal was ransacked by dacoits. THEreafter punitive police force was quartered in village Nanan under the orders of the Chief Secretary to. the Administrator Jodhpur, dated 28-4-1949, on the ground that Nanan was in a disturbed state. This police force remained in the village from May, 1949 to January, 1950, and the cost of maintaining this additional force for nine months came to Rs. 4,761/147 -. THE Tahsildar of Bilara was ordered to recover this amount from the applicant, who, however, refused to comply with this illegal order. THEreupon, the Government of Rajasthan passed orders in September, 1951, that half share of the petitioner in village Nanan be placed under State management till such time as the entire amount was recovered. Consequently, in February, 1952, the Tahsildar ordered that possession be taken over and 21-5-1952 was fixed for carrying out the order of the Tahsildar, THE applicant filed this application on the 12th May, and his contention is that the order in question is illegal and the amount cannot be recovered from him. THE main submission of the applicant is that Section 15, Marwar Police Act, 1948, requires that there should be a notification in the official gazette declaring a place to be-disturbed or dangerous, and that it is only then that the Government is entitled to quarter additional police force in the area. As this notification was never issued, all subsequent proceedings for realization of the cost of the additional police, which amounts really to a punitive tax upon the applicant, were illegal, and this Court should prohibit the opposite parties from realizing the amount from the applicant. It is also urged that, in any case the money can only be realized as provided under Section 16, Marwar Police Act, and that it was not open to the Government to attach half the applicant's jagir, and realize the amount by such attachment.

(3.) THE next question relates to the method of recovery. Section 16, Marwar Police Act, provides for realization of the cost in the manner provided by Sections 383 and 387, Marwar Criminal P. C. for recovery of fines, or by suit in any competent Court, Section 386, Marwar Cri. P. C. merely provided for the issue of a warrant by distress and sale of any movable property. It does not authorise realization by attachment of immovable property, and collection of rents thereof. Even if Section 386 of the Criminal P. C. which is now in Rajasthan in place of Section 386, Marwar Criminal P. C. were to be applied, the method to be adopted is either to issue a warrant for attachment and sale of movable property, or to issue an order to the Collector of the district authorising him to realize the amount by execution according to civil process against movable or immovable property, or both. If, therefore, immovable property of the person, who is to pay the additional costs, is to be attached, the procedure is that the Collector of the district should apply to the civil Court for execution according to civil process. THE method, therefore, adopted in this case for realization of the amount by attachment of the jagir of the applicant is not justified, under Section 16, Marwar Police Act. It is said in reply by the State that Section 16 did not exhaust the remedies open to the State, and that the amount could be recovered in any other manner provided by law. But the learned Assistant, Government Advocate has been unable to point out to us any other law which authorises the State Government to take the action which it actually did. We are, therefore, of opinion that the method adopted in this case for realization is also unauthorised by law.