2017 Supreme(AP) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
Pabbisetti Suresh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 14072, 45558 of 2016 & 13559 of 2017
Decided On : 27-04-2017

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents 3 and 5 in summoning the petitioner illegally confining him and indulging in physical and verbal abuses and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to cause an enquiry into the illegal confinement of the petitioner along with the physical and verbal abuse by the fifth respondent in the office of the third respondent - Petitioner stated that after his fathers death he was looking after the welfare of his family performed the marriage of his sister and looked after the education of his brother also sixth respondent is his brother - Petitioner was stated to have got married in and two children were born out of the marriage. Thereafter he performed the marriage of the sixth respondent in the year – While the sixth respondent came to his house demanded share of the property and threatened him with dire consequences in case of failure he came along with police and forced him to come to the office of the third respondent - He accordingly went to the office of the third respondent and by seeing the petitioner the fifth respondent became aggressive and scolded him in filthy language and asked him why he did not settle the matter with his brother - Fifth respondent did not heed his words and forced him to give to his brother otherwise threatened him that he would be implicated in false criminal cases - Respondent ordered two constables to tie up his legs and hands with rope and he was laid on a table - He was forcibly beaten indiscriminately with long sticks on his back shoulders and palms until he lost his consciousness - After he regained consciousness, the third respondent forcibly obtained his signatures on some blank papers and promissory notes in the presence of his brother threatened the petitioner not to disclose the same to anyone and anywhere and threatened to kill him in encounter if he discloses the said incident – Respondent fifth respondent called in-laws of the petitioner and threatened them also by obtaining their signatures on several blank papers forcibly and gave a similar threat to them also - Owing to such severe threat from the fifth respondent his in-laws advised him to protect himself and his family members and his family is taking shelter with his well-wishers at different places due to the fear of the fifth respondent - Fifth respondent immediately occupied the dwelling house of the petitioner and was residing there along with his family by taking possession of all his belongings - Though several times he visited fourth respondent to take his complaint the complaint was not taken and when he addressed a written complaint and sent the same through registered post to the second respondent who received it till now no action was taken. The third respondent is impleaded by name and arrayed as fifth respondent – Held, Complaint is received by any Authority or Committee at any level the approach should be towards problem solving rather than replying and disposing of the complaint - Our orientation should not be towards somehow getting the complaint off our board and thereby showing disposal of the complaint at our end. Rather, we need to deal with the complaints/public grievances pro-actively so that a party feels satisfied that he/she has received appropriate response and knows what further course of action is available to it. The objective should be redressal and not mere disposal - Legal Services Authorities have to be integrated with the directions contained in Prakash Singh, which were issued a decade back view of the above legal position, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Principal Secretaries to Governments Home Departments of Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh to constitute a State Security Commission and a Police Complaints Authority as directed by the Supreme Court by co-opting the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority of the concerned States as Member of the State Security Commission and the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority as a Member of the Police Complaints Authority at the District Level - Since more than a decade has passed after the Supreme Court issued directions and there is an urgent need to create a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the public in respect of police actions State Security Commission and the Police Complaints Authority shall be constituted as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such constitution the complaints of the petitioners in the above three writ petitions shall be sent to the State Security Commission for further action since there was failure on the part of the Superintendents of Police concerned in taking action by investigating into the complaints - Petitions are accordingly disposed - Writ petitions, shall stand closed.