ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1. Petitioner in this petition is seeking for a direction to State Government and Inspector General of Police, Davanagere, to provide security to the life of the petitioner and to hold an enquiry with regard to illegal and false complaint. Petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to investigate the corruption allegations as per Annexures-A to G. The said prayer however is not pressed as I see from the order dated 22-1-2001.
2. Petitioner claiming to run a driving school at Davanagere complains about working of RTO in Davanagere. He states in the petition that he has made certain complaints in the matter of corruption in the office of the RTO. According to him the complaint/representation submitted by him has resulted in officials of the RTO taking personal vendetta against the petitioner. Petitioner states that they lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. He further states that the officers prevented him from entering into RTO office complex, Davanagere. He states that the petitioner is receiving threatening calls from goondas and other henchmen on behalf of the RTO officials. He states that it is in these circumstances he has sought for protection and in the absence of any positive response he has approached this Court for the said relief.
3. Notice was ordered, pursuant to which the respondents have entered appearance through their Counsel and have filed an affidavit.
4. Respondents state that on receipt of the representation from the petitioner an enquiry was conducted and a report has been submitted. They further say that the petitioner Mr. Murthy was running driving school and was doing brokerage in the office of RTO and, to curb this practice of corruption through brokers they prevented the petitioner from doing such acts. Immediately the petitioner started sending petitions against the officials in the BTO office. The allegations made by the petitioner are general in nature and without any details and events. On
17-6-2000, he entered the RTO office and threatened the ARTO with dire consequences. A case is registered on Mr. G.S. Murthy. Again on 9-11-2000 the petitioner along with his brother-in-law entered the RTO office and tore documents and abused the staff in filthy language. Another case is registered against him. It is further stated that the petitioner is obstructing the smooth functioning of office of RTO and hence suo motu proceedings are also initiated in Cr. No. 327 of 2000. Insofar as wife of the petitioner is concerned she has been issued with an endorsement as per Annexures-R3 and 4.
5. I have heard the learned Counsels on either side. Perused the material on record.
6. Petitioner’s Counsel at the time of arguments produced before me the licence issued by the RTO and, the said document reveals that the driving school is run by the petitioner’s wife and not by the petitioner. Probably the petitioner must be visiting the RTO office in the light of the driving school being run by his wife. The material facts reveal that the respondent with a view to stop the menace of brokers and corruption through such brokers have prevented the petitioner from entering the RTO office. Petitioner has not questioned the refusal of entry to him in this petition. The material facts reveal that, it is after this refusal petitioner started sending representations of corruption against RTO officials. Prima facie it appears to me that this is done as a counter blast to the action of prevention of brokers by the officials at Davanagere. It is also on record that after refusal of his entry the petitioner has created an unruly scene in terms of the complaints received by the police from the RTO office. There are 3 cases already registered against him. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder refuting any allegations made by the police agency in this Court. With this background let me see as to whether the petitioner has made out any case for such a direction for police protection.
7. Police protection is given only when there is a grave danger to a person on account of several reasons so that his life and liberty is not in any way jeopardised at the hands of antisocial elements or by any other sources inimically disposed towards that individual. A case for police protection has to be made out by those who come to Court for such relief. When a litigant approaches the Court for police protection he must come with clear hands. In the case on hand reading of the petition would show that no case is made out for any police protection. On the other hand a person who has taken law into his own hands is seeking police protection. Such protection if given would be a signal to others to indulge in such acts and seek such protection. Making general allegations against the respondent will not entitle the petitioner for police protection. In the lengthy petition no where the petitioner has given any details with regard to any danger to his life. A mention of threatening calls has been made in para 3 without details. A mention of political rivalry is made in the petition again without details. The representation submitted at Annexure-G also is general in character. No details are forthcoming in the said representation. In the absence of these details this Court cannot
give any protection to the petitioner. In fact the police authorities have issued an endorsement to the wife of the petitioner that as and when the circumstances warrant she is at liberty to approach the police for such protection. Therefore, I am fully satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for any police protection for issue of any such direction in this case. Therefore, the petitioner’s prayer cannot be granted on the facts of this case.
8. I must also point out at this stage that a writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is purely discretionary in nature. Such discretionary relief is granted only to those who come to the Court with clean hands. In the case on hand several cases are filed against the petitioner. Petitioner has not referred to any one of the cases initiated against him in the months of June, November and December. He has also as per the complaint caused law and order situation in a public office. Such persons cannot be given any relief that too in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No person could be permitted to take law into his hands in the affairs of a public office.
9. In the light of the averments made in the counter-statement and in the absence of adequate details no discretionary relief can be granted to the petitioner. In these circumstances this petition stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- payable by the petitioner. The said costs is ordered to be sent to the Chief Minister, Gujarat Relief Fund within four weeks from today.