CWP NO. 15889 OF 2007. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 15889 of 2007.
Date of Decision: September 3, 2008.
Gram Panchayat, Dhaul Kalan Petitioner
through
Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents
through
Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl.AG, Punjab
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J.
This Writ Petition, branded in Public Interest, has been
instituted by the Gram Panchayat of village Dhaul Kalan, Tehsil
Payal, District Ludhiana for the quashing of a notification dated 3rd
October, 2007 [Annexure P-12] issued by the Government of Punjab,
whereby 12 villages including Dhaul Kalan were shifted from the
jurisdiction of Police Station, Payal [Police District Khanna] to Police
Station, Dehlon [District Ludhiana].
[2]. According to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, the action of
the State Government in shifting 12 villages from one Police Station
to the other, not only violates the spirit of Rule 1.10 read with
Appendix 10, Clause [3] of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, but even
smacks of political vendetta for the reason that these 12 villages
were instrumental in getting the local MLA elected, who belongs to
the opposition party. It is claimed that all the 12 villages fall within the
CWP NO. 15889 OF 2007. ::-2-::
legislative constituency of Qila Raipur from where the Congress
candidate was returned by defeating the nearest rival of the ruling
party in the recently held assembly elections.
[3]. In response to the notice of motion, a counter-affidavit
has been filed on behalf of the respondents, inter-alia, explaining that
the impugned notification has been issued in larger public interest as
the residents of the 12 villages had to travel a long distance to reach
Police Station, Payal for lodging their complaints in connection with
the crime and law & order problems. According to the respondents,
the distance of these respective villages from the Police Station has
now been substantially reduced by attaching them to the Police
Station, Dehlon. Besides this, it is also claimed that the impugned
decision will facilitate the police administration to reach promptly at
the spot of occurrence of any offence and would, thus, help in more
effective tackling of the law and order problem. The respondents
have further averred that the comparative distance of the 12 villages
from Police Station, Payal and Police Station, Dehlon, is as follows:-
Sr. Name of the village Distance from Police District from Police
No. Station Payal. Station Dehlon
1 Nanakpur Jagera 30 Kilometers 9 Kilometers
2 Jhammat 25 Kilometers 7 Kilometers
3 Kulahar 25 Kilometers 9 Kilometers
4 Kila Hans 24 Kilometers 10 Kilometers
5 Bhikhi Khattra 14 Kilometers 12 Kilometers
6 Zirakh 23 Kilometers 13 Kilometers
7 Siar 23 Kilometers 12 Kilometers
8 Daul Kalan 18 Kilometers 12 Kilometers
9 Dhaul Khurd 21 Kilometers 13 Kilometers
10 Pandher Kheri 30 Kilometers 15 Kilometers
11 Rosiana 24 Kilometers 12 Kilometers
12 Saharan Majra 26 Kilometers 14 Kilometers
CWP NO. 15889 OF 2007. ::-3-::
[4]. Reference to the recommendations for attachment of 12
villages from Police Station, Payal to Police Station, Dehlon made by
different Police and Administrative Authorities has also been made.
[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
[6]. Section 2[s] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [ for
short “the Code”] defines “Police Station” which means “any post or
place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be
a Police Station, and includes any local area specified by the State
Government in this behalf”. An informant of a cognizable or non-
cognizable offence is, therefore, expected to inform the Officer In-
charge of the Police Station in respect thereto, within whose
specified local area such an offence is reported to have been
committed.
[7]. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 have been framed under
the Indian Police Act, 1861. The Rules provide organization and
general administration of the Police Force as also the duties and
procedure to be followed in their performance. Rule 1.10, Volume I,
Chapter I of these Rules deals with the Police Station jurisdiction
which is to be divided according to “administrative convenience and
in order to meet the requirements of the Code of Criminal
Procedure”. The Rule further stipulates that the boundaries of the
Police Station jurisdiction have to be fixed from time to time and save
under the authority of the Provincial Government no alteration in the
number of police stations and outposts or in the boundaries of police
station jurisdictions may be made without the sanction of such
CWP NO. 15889 OF 2007. ::-4-::
authority. Proposals for such alterations are required to be submitted,
in the form outlined in Appendix 1.10, by Superintendents of Police
through the District Magistrate to the Deputy Inspector-General of the
range.
[8]. Similarly, Appendix No.10 prescribes the format of
Gazette Notification required to be published in the Official Gazette
for changing the jurisdictions of the respective Police Stations. Para
3 of the Schedule to the Appendix provides that while framing
proposals for alterations in the jurisdictions of the police stations, the
main object should be to secure an even and manageable
distribution of crime between Police Stations; to make the
distribution of villages conform to indigenous or natural groupings of
population; and to secure accessibility between the Police Station
and its villages and also between the police station and the Court of
the Magistrate in-charge of the jurisdiction.
[9]. Although, we are of the considered opinion that the
guidelines contained in Appendix No.10 for alterations in the Police
Stations jurisdictions do not vest any legally enforceable right in the
petitioner – Gram Panchayat or for that matter inhabitants of the 12
villages to seek their inclusion within the territorial jurisdiction of a
particular police station, yet, assuming the best in their favour and on
a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in the Code and those
in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, we are left with no doubt that the
State Government is competent to alter the jurisdiction of a police
station to secure an even and manageable distribution of crime
between different police stations. Similarly, the distance between the
CWP NO. 15889 OF 2007. ::-5-::
Police Station and the persons living within its jurisdiction, if
minimized, would not only help the police to act promptly in the event
of a crime, but also help the public at large approach the police
station concerned, if so required. We are, therefore, unable to
appreciate as to how the impugned notification which has been
issued after following the prescribed procedure, acts against the
interests of the public, more so when the distance between the Police
Station and the subject 12 villages has been substantially reduced. It
is not the petitioner’s case that the areas already included within the
jurisdiction of Police Station, Dehlon are so vast that inclusion of 12
more villages would be contrary to the principle of even and
manageable distribution of crimes between different police stations.
[10]. That apart, questions relating to maintenance of law and
order, fall within the exclusive domain of the police and administrative
authorities. This Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction in public
interest, therefore, would be slow and circumspect to interfere with
the State action purported to have been taken to improve the
efficiency of its law and order machinery, unless it is shown that the
same is directly in the teeth of some Constitutional or Statutory
provision[s] or outrageously perverse.
[11]. Dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
September 3,2008. ( T.S.THAKUR )
dinesh CHIEF JUSTICE