SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(AP) 581

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
A.b. Venkateswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13649 of 2020
Decided On : 30-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate, B. Adinarayana Rao, Advocate, S. Sri Ram, Advocate

The arrest of a person without any material to establish prima facie that he committed an offence would directly infringe the right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

WRIT - MANDAMUS - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Indian Police Service Officer, challenged the order of suspension passed against him by the State Government. The petitioner alleged that the suspension was actuated by political vendetta and that there was no financial loss caused to the State on account of his participation in the process of procurement of security equipment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was genuine and that the State was contemplating to arrest him in connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of security equipment. The court further held that the arrest of the petitioner would infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was genuine? 2. Whether the State was contemplating to arrest the petitioner in connection with the alleged irregularities in the procurement of security equipment? 3. Whether the arrest of the petitioner would infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was genuine on the basis of the following factors: a. The speed with which the order of suspension was passed. b. The fact that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was entrusted with the investigation, had submitted a report implicating the petitioner. c. The fact that the State Government had issued a Government Order cancelling the purchase order issued by the State Trading Corporation for the procurement of security equipment. 2. The court held that the State was contemplating to arrest the petitioner on the basis of the following factors: a. The fact that the State Government had issued a Government Order cancelling the purchase order issued by the State Trading Corporation for the procurement of security equipment. b. The fact that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was entrusted with the investigation, had submitted a report implicating the petitioner. 3. The court held that the arrest of the petitioner would infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the basis of the following factors: a. The petitioner was a highly placed police officer. b. The arrest of the petitioner would cause irreparable damage to his reputation.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of suspension passed against the petitioner. The court also directed the State Government to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT

M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents and their subordinates not to arrest the petitioner in any crime relating to acquisition of security equipment by the Andhra Pradesh Police or any other related subject"

2. The petitioner is an Indian Police Service Officer. While narrating his excellence in the academic career as well as in service, the petitioner contended that during his tenure as Addl. DGP, Intelligence the then leaders of the opposition party blamed him, as he is responsible for certain political events and made several statements in Press, Public meetings and in Electronic media. The petitioner taken them in his stride, as such accusations are being made routinely. Press clippings, video recordings and screen shots of social media postings are placed on record in support of his contentions to prove the acrimonious statements made against him. On the eve of general elections, they also represented to the Election Commission of India, against the petitioner, seeking his transfer alleging that he was working for the Government viz., political party in power. Though the petitioner has nothing to do with the election process, the Election Commission ordered his transfer. Accordingly, he was transferred and posted as Director General, ACB on 22.04.2019 and continued as such till the new political Government came into power. As there was a change in the political Government, on the very first day the new government was sworn i.e. on 30.05.2019, he was transferred from the post of Director General, ACB and asked to report to General Administration Department (GAD) for posting. Accordingly, he was relieved the very next day and reported to GAD. Thereafter, he was kept without posting and without payment of salary. Having waited for more than seven months, he made representations dated 06.01.2020 and 28.01.2020. But, as a rebuttal to his representations, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 08.02.2020 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry.

3. The petitioner also explained relevant facts leading to his suspension i.e. to combat left wing extremism and red sanders smuggling, both of which had claimed many lives of police and forest force, with a view to track their activities by use of surveillance equipment, it was thought that the Andhra Pradesh Police shall acquire such technology and hardware with the funds provided by the Central Government for modernization of police force. Pursuant to the request made by the Addl. Director General of Police (Intelligence) dated 14.06.2017, the Director General of Police has constituted a purchase committee and a technical committee for examining the same and also for finalizing the terms and procurement of the equipment. The petitioner was not a party to both the committees. The tender process was entrusted to the State Trading Corporation of India, a Government of India enterprise. When global tenders were invited, the minimum cost of the equipment quoted by the tenderer had far exceeded the budget provided for and hence, the meeting of the purchasing committee was convened. The said meeting was called on 26.06.2018 and the petitioner attended the said meeting since Inspector General of Police deputed him as Inspector General of Police was out of station and as the petitioner was holding additional charge of the said post. In the said meeting chaired by the Chairman of the Purchase Committee and attended by eight IPS officers, it was unanimously decided to scale down the specifications to suit the budget and to refloat the tender. Minutes of the meeting were recorded. Again, pursuant to the scaling down of tenders, tenders were floated by the State 'Trading Corporation of India and purchase order dated 05.10.2018 was issued to the suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top