HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22364 of 2010 DATE: 13.06.2014 Between:
Suggu Rami Reddy And The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District & another ... Petitioner … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22364 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents.
2. The petitioner is the resident of Akasalakkavaram village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam district and he worked as Sarpanch of the said village. When there was a proposal to construct a power plant at Kakarapalli village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam district, an association was formed by the residents of Santhabommali Mandal and they were agitating against setting up of power plant on the ground that it would damage the eco system in the area. The petitioner also filed a case before the National Environmental Appellate Authority in Appeal No.16 of 2009 and it was pending consideration. At the instance of the owners of the power plant and local politicians, false cases were being registered against the members of the association to curb the agitation. While so, in the year 2006 a case in Cr.No.13 of 2006 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 474, 417 and 420 IPC by Naupada PS, Srikakulam District on the ground that the petitioner and another, alleged to have forged the signatures of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Santhabommali Mandal. Another crime in Cr.No.6 of 2010 was registered by the same police for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 147, 148 read 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Yet another case in Cr.No.16 of 2010 of Santhabommalai Police Station was also registered against the petitioner. The petitioner states that a rowdy sheet was opened without following standing orders applicable for the opening of the rowdy sheet and he challenges the orders of the respondents in the present writ petition.
3. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.
4. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner held the post of Sarpanch Akarsalakkavaram gram Panchayat and cases were booked against him later on in connection with the agitation against setting up of power plant. In a democratic set up, people like petitioner, can agitate and espouse the cause of other people peacefully. The police are justified in registering cases against the agitators, who indulged in unlawful activities. However, opening of a rowdy sheet has to be in accordance with the Police Stating Orders.
5. In the circumstances, the first respondent can review the case of the petitioner for closure of the rowdy sheet in accordance with the provisions of the Police Standing Orders and keeping in view of the changed scenario. The petitioner is given liberty to submit a representation to the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 13.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 6 WRIT PETITION No.22364 of 2010 Date: 13.06.2014 BSS