Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1931
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Alarmelu Mangai
Versus
The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Department, Chennai & Others
W.P.NO.14781 of 2004
Decided on : 27-04-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Vaithiyalingam for M. Gnanalingam, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R. Neelakandan, Government Advocate, R2 & R3, Gopi Krishnan & V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Amicus curiae, Advocates.
Ratio:
Estate officer, so designated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not have the power to conduct the search of the premises when it is occupied.
Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.21- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971(40 of 1971)-Sec.8-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.160-Fundamental right-Privacy-Reputation-Police-Armed forces-Quarters-Estate officer-Moral policing-Search-Residence-Woman-Petitioner was residing with her children in the quarter allotted to her constable husband-When she was, alongwith her children in the house of another constable Mr.Bhagawan at about 11 P.M., the respondent entered into that house, abused her, insulted her modesty and took her to the police station along with her three children and after half an hour questioning, she was allowed to go-Incident was widely reported in many newspapers-Petitioner alleged that the respondents acted in a high handed manner, insulted her modesty and damaged her reputation which even damaged her marital life and prayed for compensation-Respondents contended that there was a complaint from the neighbours about the illegal intimacy between the petitioner and Mr.Bhagawan and when the petitioner was not available in the quarters of her husband, police went to the house of Mr.Bhagawan and on search, she was available in the bed room concealing herself and after brief questioning, since the matter was trivial, case was not registered and she was let off-Held, the respondents were not entitled to do moral policing-Dragging the petitioner and her children to the police station at odd hours had caused stigma to her reputation and caused enormous mental agony and violated her fundamental right-Conducting such search by the Estate Officer was not authorised under the provisions of law-Respondents were directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000.
(B)Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971(40 of 1971)-Sec.8-Estate officer-Moral policing-Search-Residence-Authority-Estate officer, so designated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not have the power to conduct the search of the premises when it is occupied.
The power was conferred on an Estate Officer only for the purpose of evicting an unauthorised occupant of Government quarters. The petitioner residing in the quarters of her husband is not unauthorised. The Act nowhere contemplates such power to enter into the residential quarters just before midnight and to harass any home maker and to further give a false statement and dragging her to a local police station for a so-called questioning. Para 12
Further, there is no provision under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by which an Estate Officer in the absence of an unauthorised occupant holding on to a Government quarters can barge into the residential quarters and conduct an enquiry, which is not contemplated under law. Para 15
1. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Vaithiyalingam, learned counsel for Mr.M.Gnanalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for first respondent, Mr.Gopi Krishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan, Amicus curiae counsel for the court.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.50 lakhs for the wrongs committed by the respondents. Pending the writ petition, she has also sought for restraining the third respondent and his men from forcibly evicting her from quarters No.1124, Special E Block, Type 1, GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. The writ petition was admitted on 25. 2004. In the application regarding quarters, an interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, by an order, dated 13. 2005, the injunction application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi for the quarters as it was allotted only to her husband. On notice from this court, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (September, 2004) was filed.
3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Mathematics. She is married to N.Govindasamy, who is a CRPF Constable posted at Tripura. They had three children, i.e. Lakshmi, who was nine years old, Karthik aged 6 years and the third child is Kishore, who was 4 years old at that time. They are studying at the Kendriya Vidyalaya School, CRPF, Avadi. She was staying alone with her three children in the quarters No.1124, Type 1, Special E Block, GC, CRPF, Avadi for more than three years. Since her husband was posted to the North Eastern sector, she tried her best to bring back her husband to a posting in Tamil Nadu. But that did not succeed. She was taking tuition to her children as well as the children of neighbourhood. She knew one Bagawan, who is a relative of her husband and was serving in the CRPF.
4. The said Bagawan invited her to participate in the birthday celebration of his youngest daughter by name Judge on 21. 2004. She had also participated in the said function along with her three children. They were all in a jubilant mood and were having dinner. Half way through the function, there was a knock on the door of Bagawans quarters. A team of the local police personnel led by the 6th respondent (Inspector of Police) and some CRPF personnel led by the 5th respondent (S.K.Dey, Subethar Major) entered that house. On seeing the petitioner, the sixth respondent abused and charged her as if she was having illicit intimacy with Bagawan. When Bagawan requested them to behave decently, the seventh respondent, an Head Constable attached to Tank Factory Police Station, pushed him aside using filthy words and the 6th respondent assaulted him. The petitioner was forced to get into the jeep along with her children. When she resisted from being taken forcibly, the 6th respondent outraged her modesty and dragging her to the Jeep by holding on to her lock.
5. Bagawan along with his three female children and the petitioner along with her children were taken to F2 Tank Factory Police Station at midnight in the guise of conducting an enquiry. All were kept in the police station upto 2.00 a.m on 21. 2004. Thereafter, they were set free without conducting an enquiry. It was later the petitioner came to know that the raid was conducted only on the instruction of third respondent, i.e. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police., GC, CRPF, Avadi. The said incident was published in all the leading daily newspapers and weeklies including the New Indian express, Daily Thanthi, Junior Vikatan, Malai Murasu and India Today. The incident brought disrepute to her character and her Right to Privacy and liberty were infringed because of the callous and rude attitude of the respondents 3 to 7. Ever since the incident, she was made to undergo untold humiliation and to face disgrace in t
