Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 46 (RAJ)

Het Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2002-01-08

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has averred that allegedly a letter was sent by fax dated 3.7.2001. This letter informed the Collector, Sri Ganganagar that the petitioner would burn himself before the office of Collector. This was said to be in protest of an illegal construction of 'Diggi'. The demand of the petitioner in the letter was said to be staying the construction of 'diggi'. After the receipt of this letter, it is said that S.H.O. Rajisar and S.H.O. Muklawa tried to search for the petitioner but they could not trace him. It is alleged in the writ petition that the police department is alleged to have posted police force at the Collector's office on 10.7.2001 for security of the petitioner. In this process, the police is alleged to have incurred heavy expenditure and the amount is said to be Rs. 63,294/: A notice in this relation was issued to the petitioner which is produced as Annexure-1 with this writ petition which states that the petitioner is required to deposit the said amount. 3. The petitioner submitted reply to this letter and submitted that the demand raised against the petitioner is not justified because the expenses can be called from those who asked for police protection and then compensate the State Government for the same. The petitioner has averred that the Land Revenue Act does not authorise the respondents to recover any amount as alleged by them and thus it has been prayed that the recovery may be stayed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar submitted that the letter alleged to have sent to the Collector was in different context. Since, the demand of the villagers was not heeded to, the present fax was sent to the Collector. It is not denied by the petitioner that in fact, such a threat was issued on behalf of the petitioner. Issuance of such a threat would naturally put the administration on its guard and they would then be required by implication to safeguard the petitioner. Such kind of acts cannot be treated to be legitimate expression of grievance in democratic set up. The demonstration is not uncalled for but such a threat of immolation goes beyond a demonstration. This may even amount to same kind of act which would create a negative impact on the society. Such kind of acts cannot be treated to be legitimate expression of grievance in democratic set up. The demonstration is not uncalled for but such a threat of immolation goes beyond a demonstration. This may even amount to same kind of act which would create a negative impact on the society. As and when such kind of threats are issued, the person issuing the threat cannot claim a right under the Constitution of India to safeguard his interest. In fact, it can be said that the petitioner had tried to take law into his own hands. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not always available at the request of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be considered to be one which is commensurate with the democratic set up and thus, this court feels that the exercise of jurisdiction at the request of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for. The relief is further not liable to be granted to the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because an order passed under the Land Revenue Act can be appealed under Section 71 of the Land Revenue Act and thus, the petitioner has alternative remedy available and, therefore, also no indulgence is called for in the present writ petition. 5. There is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. 6. The stay application is also dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******