Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 944 (PAT)

Sudhir Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-02

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. ORDER :- The petitioners seem to be vying with another person (who though named in the writ petition, has not been impleaded as a party in this case) over the location of the building to accommodate Asarganj police station. And, describing it to be in public interest, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction from this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, requiring the concerned State officials to set up the police station at the location favoured by the petitioners after completing the construction of the building over the land donated by the petitioners for the purpose. 2 It is the case of the petitioners that by two deeds dated 12-4-1984 and 10-5-1988 petitioner No. 1 and the predecessors of petitioner No. 2 donated 1.46 1/2 acres of land situate at Ladauwa. More by the side Sultanganj Deoghar road. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Supdt. of Police, Munger who was in office at that time selected the site for construction of the building for Asarganj Police station. A site-plan was accordingly prepared and after due sanction the construction of the police station building was started there. Later on, however, after the structure was completed up to lintel level (see the photograph at Annexure 8), a certain Gautam Das of village Asarganj made a gift of 2.5 acres of land in favour of the Governor of Bihar under a registered deed of gift, dated 14-12-1998. It is alleged that under the influence of the aforementioned Gautam Das the construction work of the building was stopped at the petitioners site and on a request made by the Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, a re-inspection was made of the petitioners site and the new site offered by Gautam Das and on that basis the District Magistrate and the Supdt. of Police, Munger submitted a report, dated 9-2-1999 making a recommendation for setting up the police station at the new site. In the report, a copy whereof is at Annexure 3, it is stated that the petitioners site was at a distance of about 1 K.M. from Asarganj Bazar where the police station was presently lodged. It was further stated that the petitioners land which was earlier ... ... In the report, a copy whereof is at Annexure 3, it is stated that the petitioners site was at a distance of about 1 K.M. from Asarganj Bazar where the police station was presently lodged. It was further stated that the petitioners land which was earlier ... ... (sic) Officer was not sufficient in area for construction of the residential accommodation for the police officials and it also fell short of the standard fixed by the State Government. On the other hand, an area of 2.5 acres provided by the local people of the Asarganj Bazar came up to the standard laid down by the State Government and on that site there was sufficient land for construction of the residential quarters for the police officials. It was further stated that setting up the police station at the Bazar would afford better security and protection to the residents of the Bazar, traders, trading organisations and the banks situate there. It was also stated that adjacent to Asarganj Bazar was Masoomganj etc. which was considered a den of criminals and setting up the police station there would afford a firm control over those criminals. It was accordingly recommended that the police station be set up on the site at Asarganj Bazar and a police out post be put up on the petitioners site. 3. According to the petitioners, the report submitted by the District Magistrate and the Supdt. of Police, Munger was false and collusive. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that even after the submission of this report, the construction work on their site was resumed for a short while but it was finally stopped when the Chief Engineer of the Corporation by his letter, dated 19-5-1999 informed the Executive Engineer of the Corporation that the Director General of Police had given his approval for construction of the building of Asarganj police station on the new site at Asarganj Bazar and directed him to take up the construction work on the new site. 4. Before proceeding further it may be recorded that when this case was initially taken up the Court made an observation that if the two donors (petitioners 1 and 2) were agreeable to the proposal, the respondent authorities might be persuaded to restore to them the lands donated by them along with the structure constructed on it. 4. Before proceeding further it may be recorded that when this case was initially taken up the Court made an observation that if the two donors (petitioners 1 and 2) were agreeable to the proposal, the respondent authorities might be persuaded to restore to them the lands donated by them along with the structure constructed on it. It was also explained that in that event the land along with the structure constructed on it would once again vest in the petitioners absolutely and free from all encumbrances. The counsel for the petitioners understandably needed fresh instructions on this proposal and on a prayer made by him, the matter was adjourned. When the case was taken up again after two weeks, it was reported to the Court that the petitioners would accept nothing but a direction from this Court to the respondent authorities for setting up Asarganj police station at the petitioners site. The Court was rather surprised at this curious display of obduracy by the petitioners. 5. The Court then proceeded to hear the parties in order to dispose of this case on merits. 6. Counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents and the petitioners affidavit in reply to those counter affidavits are on the record in which a lengthy debate is made regarding the respective merits and de-merits of the two sites for setting up the police station. We do not propose to enter into that controversy nor do we intend to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the district administration in the matter of selection of site for setting up a police station. The petitioners simply do not seem to realise the limitations of the judicial process. A decision regarding the site for a police station is a purely administrative decision and no direction can be issued by a writ Court or perhaps even by a Civil Court requiring the authorities entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order to set up a police station at a particular site in preference to some other site selected by the authorities. A decision regarding the site for a police station must be left with the authorities who have been assigned the responsibility of policing and maintaining law and order in the society. If such purely administrative decisions are made the subject of judicial interference, it would well nigh become impossible to run the administration. A decision regarding the site for a police station must be left with the authorities who have been assigned the responsibility of policing and maintaining law and order in the society. If such purely administrative decisions are made the subject of judicial interference, it would well nigh become impossible to run the administration. Even assuming that earlier a decision was taken to set up the police station at the petitioners site it would be open to the concerned authorities to change their mind in favour of a better site for the police station. 7. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the view that no such direction as prayed for on behalf of the petitioners can be issued. 8. In case, however, the petitioners feel that they suffered any loss due to the back tracking by the respondent authorities and if the petitioners have reasons to believe that the respondents have breached any agreement, it will be open to them to bring an action for damages. In the event such an action is brought, it will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9. For the reasons stated above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners by this Court. This writ petition is quite misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.