S. Syam Prasada Rao vs Government of A.P. and Others

Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.—The petitioner in this writ petition is one Mr. S. Syam Prasada Rao, who has been working as Sub-Inspector of Police attached to District Crime Records Bureau, Kurnool. He has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation impleading the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema Region, Hyderabad, as respondents. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:

".....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., Government in not locating the Office of the Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema Region in any suitable point of Rayalaseema as illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further consequently prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to forthwith locate the Office of Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema Region in the midst of Rayalaseema or any appropriate place in Rayalaseema to effectively maintain law and order in Rayalaseema and to convert it into a peace zone....."

It is averred by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the districts of Kurnool, Cuddapah, Anantapur and Chittoor are known as Rayalaseema area in the State of Andlira Pradesh, that these Districts are famous for factionism, naxalism, feudalism, dacoities, ISI activities and illegal bomb manufacturing as a domestic habit, that in the year 2000 eight murders took place on one and the same day in a broad day light at Gulyam village of erstwhile Alur Taluk, Kurnool District, that in the same year 24 dalits were slaughtered at Vempenta village within Atmakur Police Station limits on a single day, that a former Member of Parliament was shot dead at Kurnool Bus Station, itself, that in the year 2001 an Ex-Minister was put to death and Police Station at Srisailam, a temple town, was blasted by Naxalities, that a sitting MLA of Pathikonda Assembly Constituency was murdered in the day light by factionists and that eight murders took place in Durvasi village on a single day. The petitioner stated several such incidents in his affidavit.

It is the case of the petitioner that he hails from Kumool District and being a Police Officer knows the deteriorating law and order situation in Rayalaseema region and as such, he is having locus standi to file this writ petition.

It is also the case of the petitioner that to curtail the factionism and naxalism in the Rayalaseema area, a post called Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema has been created, but the Office of the said Inspector-General of Police is located in Hyderabad and not in Rayalaseema. The petitioner states that sitting in Hyderabad and trying to control the affairs of Rayalaseema is making a mockery of the very name of the post of Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema and sounds farcical and that there is no point in creating the post of Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema and making the said IGP to sit in Hyderabad instead of creating an Office of IGP in Rayalaseema and making the IGP sit there as being done in the other regions.

With the above and other averments, this writ petition is filed for the aforementioned prayer.

Sri S.R. Sanku, leaned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema has been created to curb the menace of crime in the Rayalaseema region and, therefore, the Office of the said IGP should be located only in Rayalaseema region and not at Hyderabad. He pleads to issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to forthwith locate the Office of the Inspector-General of Police, Law and Order, Rayalaseema in the midst of Rayalaseema or any appropriate place in Rayalaseema to effectively maintain law and order in Rayalaseema. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Comptroller and Auditor-general of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another Vs. K.S. Jagannathan and Another, , and particularly paragraph 20 thereof, which reads:

"There is, thus, no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case, a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performances in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, arid in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion."

As already noticed, the prayer in the writ petition is in the nature of a mandamus. It is settled law that a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus can be maintained only if there is a demand and consequent refusal. In the said decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner also, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the power to issue a writ of mandamus has to be exercised only when the Government or a police authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or policy decision or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations and materials. But, in the instant case, the petitioner has fairly conceded that before approaching this Court he has not approached the respondents and made any written representation to them. Therefore, in our opinion, the writ petition for issuance of a mandamus is not maintainable without the petitioner first approaching the authorities concerned.

It is well settled that where a particular office should be located is within the absolute domain of the executive and the interference by this Court is not warranted in such matters. It is for the Government to look into the relevant matters and to protect the public interest in the region in question. We do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition, at this stage.

Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as not maintainable. The WPMP is also dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the Government for the relief sought in this case, if he so desires. No costs.