1. Heard Shri Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner/applicant. Shri Niraj Soni, learned APP is present on behalf of the respondent no.1. Shri Rajesh Chauhan for Shri Munshaw for respondent no.2 is present. Shri Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, affirmed on 2nd July, 2012, copy is served to the other side.
2. Shri Oza has made serious grievances with regard to one Police Officer, Shri Taviyal (PSI - Fathepura Police Station) and submitted that this Police Officer has acted contrary to the order of this Court in this matter. The said affidavit, which is additional affidavit is taken on record. It is at this stage required to be noted that this Court on 28/12/2011 (Coram : J. C. Upadhyaya, J.) passed the following order.
"1. Heard Mr. Y. N. Oza, learned sr.counsel with Mr.Savjani, learned advocate for the applicant and perused the papers. Mr.Oza, learned sr.counsel submits that the perusal of FIR would reveal that it pertains to some irregularities, which occurred at Villages Madhva and Motirail (East), and he submitted that the applicant, who is accused No.3 in the FIR, has never worked in either of the villages and these villages were not within his charge, and in support thereof, my attention was drawn to Annexure-B. However, Mr.Kirit Patel, learned advocate for Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.2 submits that since Mr.Munshaw is busy before another Court, the matter may be adjourned.
2. However, at this stage, without going deep into the matter and since both the sides can get ample opportunity to make their submissions, the matter is adjourned to 13/01/2012. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. D. S. permitted."
3. This Court (Coram : S. R. Brahmbhatt, J.) on 22nd June, 2012 passed the following order.
"Learned advocates for the parties request for time. Request is accepted. S.O. to 06/07/2012. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then."
4. Thus, the original order in respect of direction for not taking any coercive steps is in operation, despite that, the event mentioned in the affidavit, if it is said to be correct, then, prima facie the same amounts to blatant disregard to the system of law, machinery and the Court's order itself. Therefore, in my view let there be an appropriate affidavit filed by the concerned responsible officer of the State explaining the conduct on the part of Shri Taviyal, the concerned officer. The event narrated in the affidavit-in-reply, if found to be correct, betrays lack of basic knowledge on the part of the officer concerned and therefore, this calls for serious action.
4.1 The Court ordinarily would have called upon the responsible District Head of the Police to file reply affidavit, however, this action attributed to the Police Officer if found correct, then the same calls explanation from none less then the Secretary of the Home Department, who shall file an affidavit after obtaining proper explanation from all the concerned officers on the conduct of the officer in question. The affidavit shall be placed on record on or before 16th July, 2012. The matter is ordered to be placed on 16th July, 2012. The interim order granted earlier shall be continued till then. The affidavit-in-reply, if not filed, the same would entail serious consequences and in that eventuality the concerned Home Secretary shall himself remain personally present before this Court on the same day at 11:00 O'clock.
5. The copy of this order be supplied today to the learned APP for its onwards transmission and compliance.
(S.
R. BRAHMBHATT, J.) Rathod Top