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. No. Name of the village Distance from Police Station Payal. District from Police 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