P. RAMULU Vs. M. MADHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent in both these applications is the plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 2005 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) He was employed in the Police Department of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh since 1.2.1974 when he joined as a Direct Recruit Civil Sub-Inspector. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 30-4-1985. He contended that the 1st defendant, who worked as District Magistrate under A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Decoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 without application of mind, out of malice and grudge at the instance of defendants 1-5, issued orders on 19-12-2001 under the said statute for his preventive detention and on 20-12-2001, he was illegally detained. He contended that though he submitted a representation to 1st defendant on 31-12- 2001, it was rejected summarily. He then approached the Advisory Committee consisting of three retd. High Court Judges who opined on 25.1.2002 that there were no sufficient reasons for his detention. So the said detention orders were revoked vide G.O.Rt.No.421 dt.25-1-2002 and he was released on 26-1-2002 from prison. He stated that he was unfairly dubbed as a land grabber by defendants 1-5, victimized and defamed by them on TV and through Newspaper publications and he was even denied promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He gave a legal notice to the defendants under Sec.80 of the CPC on 8-1-2003 seeking damages and then filed O.S.No.183 of 2005 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(3.) In the suit he sought damages of Rs.1.00 crore with interest @ 24% p.a. on the ground that he was illegally detained under A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Decoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 for a period of 36 days from 20-12-2001, that he was falsely branded as a land grabber and victimized, that his fundamental rights were violated by petitioners and other respondents, that his reputation was damaged and he also suffered mental agony.