1985 Supreme(AP) 441

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
. - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 10077/85 etc.
Decided On : 11-20-85
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. P. Innayya Reddy

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Arts 19 (1) (g) and 226 - Police have power to inspect on suspicion a business premises for detection and prevention of Crime - Such business houses have no fundamental right under Art 19 [1] (g) - High Court cannot issue a writ in that regard

       Held : Police Officers have powers to take action for detection and prevention of Crime But, at the same time, the powers of the Police to enter premises cannot be unlimited or excessive Police powers are clearly conditioned by the requirement that the Officer exercising that them has reasonable grounds or case for believing that a given state of affairs exist If the exercise of such a power is challenged on the basis that “reasonable grounds” did not in fact, exist, the onus of establishing them lies on the Officer The test is “objective” rather the “subjective” in that the Officer honest Policy that he had “reasonable grounds” will not of itself be sufficient The statutory procedure and conditions for inspection of premises, if any, must be followed and complied with It is not permissible to issue a blanket order or a writ that the police Officers should not interfere with the activities of the petitioner no can any general declaration be granted that the said activities are always lawful The Court can neither grant blanket declarations is favour of the petitioners as to the lawfulness of all or any of their present or future activities nor presume that an action of the police, in feature, is likely to be without reasonable cause or without reasonable suspicion that any offence is committed or is about to be committed Thus no rights under Art 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India are not affected

       WPs Dismissed