SHIV DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Shiv Dutt Sharma, challenging the order of the City Magistrate, Jaipur city, dated September 3, 1972, passed under Section 144, Cr. P.C. The petitioner is a student of S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. He is living in the Senior Boys' Hostel, Room No. 39, having deposited his Hostel fee from 1st July to 31st December,1972. The students of the Medical College submitted a charter of their demands to the Government for solving their unemployment problem. They also made a peaceful demonstration on August 16, 1972 outside the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. In order to press their demand they wanted to meet the Health Minister, but when they failed to do so, they staged demonstration outside his residence in a peaceful manner for sometime, but the police force removed them. The State of Rajasthan, according to the petitioner, started unprecedented repressive measures to suppress their demand for employment. During the night intervening September 2 and 3, 1972, the petitioner was sleeping in the room of his hostel at Jaipur. The door of his room was got opened and when he came out he found several R.A.C. Jawans with lathis and 'Dandas' in their hands. They pounced upon the petitioner and other boys. They were taken out from their rooms. In the meantime Shri Tara Prakash Joshi, City Magistrate, Jaipur City, told the wardens of the hostel not to intervene. The students were then taken to the R.A.C. lines. Mr. Tara Prakash Joshi asked the petitioner to go home. After about 2 weeks the petitioner was released and an order under Section 144, Cr. P.C. was passed by Mr. Tara Prkash Joshi, City Magistrate, Jaipur City. The petitioner submits that this order is ultra -vires under Section 144, Cr. P.C. and that Section 144 of the Code has been misused by learned City Magistrate in getting the hostel vacated. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G.M. Lodha for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.

(3.) THUS , propriety of the order as well as its legality can be considered by the High Court in revision though in examining the propriety of an order the High Court undoubtedly must give due weight to the opinion of the concerned Magistrate, who is the man on the spot and responsible for the maintenance of public peace in the area. In support of this proposition I place reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra : 1961CriLJ16 wherein it has no doubt been said that it was open to the parties concerned to move the District Magistrate and apply for modification of the order by granting them exemption from the restriction placed by the order. But in this very judgment in head note C. it has been made clear;