Decided on May 07,1954



- (1.) THIS application is by one Anant Reddy invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order of the Commissioner of City Police dated 4-3-1954 directing the petitioner to remove himself to Trimulgherry be quashed. Notice was issued to the respondent and a counter has been filed. The allegation of the petitioner is that he has been in Hyderabad from his childhood and that he is the President of the Qutubiguda Labour Co-operative Society and that he has been constructing the houses of labourers under a scheme based on co-operative basis. The petitioner further averred that the petitioner's rivals wanted to run down the petitioner's business and therefore made a false report against him moving the Magistrate to take proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P. C. , and that such proceedings were taken and after investigation the petitioner was discharged. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police served a notice upon him to leave Division No. 3 and to go and stay at Trimulgherry. This order of the Commissioner of Police is attacked by the petitioner on various grounds.
(2.) WE heard the arguments of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the Advocate-General on behalf of the respondent. This order of the Commissioner of Police purports to have been made under Section 26 of the City Police Act. The contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner are that by reason of this order of externment of the Commissioner of City Police, the fundamental rights conferred on him under the Constitution under Article 19 (1) (d) and (e) have been infringed, that the order in question is mala fide, that the Hyderabad City Police Act itself is ultra vires the Constitution as it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Along with the application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari the petitioner filed an application for the stay of the order of the Commissioner pending disposal of the writ petition. The stay petition came on for hearing and on the date of the hearing we were informed that the petitioner had already removed himself to Trimulgherry and inasmuch as the order had been carried out we stated that there was no necessity to pass any order on the stay petition and directed that the writ application itself be posted for arguments.
(3.) IT would be advisable to dispose of two minor arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner. His first argument was that there are two enactments in the Hyderabad State namely, the Hyderabad City Police Act and the District Police Act and that the existence of two different enactments for the two areas created a discrimination between the people of the City and those in the Districts. On the face of it this argument is absolutely fallacious. It would appear that Police Acts have, in other parts of India, also been enacted separately for the Districts and the City, for example, in Bombay before the Bombay Police Act (Act 22 of 1951) there were two Acts one with regard to the City and the other with regard to the Districts. Both have now been amalgamated and codified into one Act. There is no discrimination whatsoever. Each enactment is intended for a particular area. The two enactments are in pari materia.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.