Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 280 (MP)

Sanjay Golhani v. State Government of M. P.

2011-02-28

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava. J. 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the validity and pregnability of the impugned order Annexure P-1, dated 2-8-2009 whereby by taking aid of Rule 855 of the M.P. Police Regulations, the Petitioner has been made pivot of surveillance. 2. The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that before passing such order by the Superintendent of Police by taking aid of this provision, it was incumbent upon him to bring the facts on record and material for its satisfaction that the Petitioner has become hazardous on account of public tranquility. Learned Counsel submits that in the order impugned, no such material has been disclosed and in a mechanical manner, the said order has been passed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder v. State of M.P. 1995 (11) MPWN 138. By inviting my attention to Rule 857 of Police Regulations, further it has been submitted that the duration of surveillance should be short but that period is not disclosed. 3. On the other hand, Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On bare perusal of the impugned order, it is gathered that although it has been mentioned in it that the history sheet of the Petitioner was opened and the recommendation of the SDO (P), Lakhnadon was also taken into account, but, on opening of the history sheet, what was found and in what manner the activities of the Petitioner involved in public peace and security, his presence in the said District has became dangerous, the order is silent. In Rule 855 itself, it has been mentioned that mere conviction in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperils safety of society shall not warrant surveillance under this Regulation. For better understanding, it would be fruitful to quote entire Rule 855 which reads thus: 855. Surveillance-persons fit for. In Rule 855 itself, it has been mentioned that mere conviction in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperils safety of society shall not warrant surveillance under this Regulation. For better understanding, it would be fruitful to quote entire Rule 855 which reads thus: 855. Surveillance-persons fit for. - Surveillance proper, as district from general supervision, should be restricted to those persons, whether previously convicted or not, against whom reasonable material exists to induce the opinion that they show a determination to lead a life of crime, being confined to such criminal activities as involve public peace and security and are dangerous security risks. Mere conviction in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperils safety of society shall not warrant surveillance under this regulation. When the entries in a history sheet or any other information at his disposal, lead the Superintendent of Police to believe that a particular individual is leading a life of crime, as afore said, he may order that his name be entered in the Surveillance Register. The Circle Inspector will thereupon open a history sheet, if one is not already in existence and the man will be placed under regular surveillance. 6. For deciding the aforesaid provision on the touchstone and anvil of the present factual scenario, it is gathered that without any material, the impugned order has been passed hence it is clear that the Division Bench's decision squarely applicable in the present case. 7. I may also profitably place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Chand v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 613 , wherein it has been held in a similar provision in the Delhi Police Act that any apprehension would not be enough to pass an order of externment. The Apex Court further held that there must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. 8. On bare perusal of Para 5 of the return, this Court finds that although it has been mentioned that satisfaction was accorded by the Superintendent of Police in passing the order (Annexure P-1) but that material has not been disclosed in the order itself and, therefore, according to me, the action of the Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be in consonance to the aforesaid provision. In this para of the return, it has been admitted by the Respondents that later on, no criminal case has been registered against the Petitioner. 9. Apart from this, on bare perusal of Rules 857, it is gathered that the order of surveillance should be for a shorter duration only but what should be that period; it is not mentioned in the order (Annexure P-1). For this additional reason also, the said order cannot be allowed to remain stand. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 2-8-2008 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and quashed. No order as to costs.