JUDGMENT M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.
1. Heard Shrl V. B. Singh and Shrl T. P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3, who has filed a counter-affidavit, Sri Shashi Nandan who represents re spondent No. 4 and Sri M. D. Singh who represents the respondent No. 5 as well as Sri Ram Singh, who represents respondent No. 6.
2. We have perused the writ petition and counter-affidavits. This case discloses a shocking State of affairs. The petitioner is a Senior Advocate of this Court and he went to Prayag railway station to receive his daughter who was arriving at Allahabad by Ganga Gomti Express from Lucknow on 22.4.1998. He had earlier telephoned to Prayag railway enquiry to know about the train's arrival time. Despite telephoning several times- no one responded. Thereafter the petitioner went to Prayag railway station and he made a complaint regarding non-receiving of telephone calls by the staff at the station. A copy of the said complaint is Annexure-I to the writ petition. Thereupon the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 along with other persons came and detained the petitioner in a room for about two hours and although the train arrived, the petitioner was not able to receive his daughter. This is a shocking state of affairs ant) discloses the mentality of the respondents. The detention of a person is in fact a criminal offence being wrongful confinement. We have been informed that respondent No. 5 constable Chandra Bhan Sharma of the R.P.F. has already been suspended and we direct that respondent No. 6 Sri Ram Bahadur shall also be placed under suspension by the authority concerned immediately and disciplinary proceedings shall be instituted against him.
3. Sri V. B. Singh and Sri T. P. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner have made a request that a computerised railway booking and computerised enquiry counter should be set up in the High Court compound because a large number of persons come to Allahabad High Court in connection with the cases and hence this facility will be a great convenience to the Judges, litigants, lawyers (both in the High Court and those coming from other places), officers and staff of the registry of this Court, etc. We are informed that there is such a facility in the Supreme Court, and we think that it is a reasonable suggestion. We, therefore, direct the railway authorities concerned to take up this matter with the Registrar of this Court and endeavour to provide such facility at the earliest. The railway authorities shall attend the Registrar of this Court in his chamber on the date and time the Registrar Intimates to them so that the setting up of this facility can be expedited.
4. Personal attendance of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is exempted till further orders.
5. List before us on 10.7.1998.