IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16908 of 2008 Between: Kum. Fatima Begum D/o. Late Salam Bahameed R/o. H.No. 18-10-78/1, Opp. Govt. Hospital, Barkas, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mr. Syed Fayaz S/o. Not known, Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad. 2 Mr. Rajender Kulkarni Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 M. Anand Kumar S/o. M. Bal Singh Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 5 The Director General & Inspector General of Police The State of A.P. Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 6 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl,. Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the Respondents to forthwith Produce in this Hon'ble Court, the detainee by name Sanjay Shivarj Shinde S/o. Shivaraj Shinde age about 22 years, a worker in the Jumera hotel of the writ Petitioner who has been in the illegal custody under the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 since 31-7-2008 and the Honourable Court may be pleased to record his statement, set him at liberty by duly awarding him compensation and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION No.16908 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUST ICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detainee, by name Sanjay Shivaraj Shinde, a worker in Jumera Hotel, Hyderabad, who has been illegally detained by the respondents 1 to 3 since 31.07.2008. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are Circle Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and Police constable, respectively, of Chandrayangutta Police Station. Since they were added in their individual capacity by their names, when the matter was taken up for admission, this Court passed an order, on 05.08.2008, permitting the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondents 1 to 3, in view of the urgency involved in the matter. Similarly, the Registry also had taken steps to serve the notice on respondents 1 to 3. 4. The notices sent by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the respondents 1 to 3 were returned unserved with an endorsement that all the above three respondents were not available continuously for about a week i.e., from 07.08.2008 to 14.08.2008. Similarly, the notices sent by the Registry of this Court were also found to have been not served on the respondents 1 to 3 till 19.08.2008. 5. As already pointed out, the respondents 1 to 3 are responsible police oﬃcers working in diﬀerent capacities. It is rather unthinkable for this Court to know that they were not present in Chandrayangutta Police Station for service of notice on them either through the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner or through the Registry of this Court. 6. This appears to be a deliberate action of these respondents either to evade or ignore the notices or not having a comprehension about the sanctity of the notices issued by this Court. This ignorance cannot be expected from the officers like the respondents 1 to 3. 7. This trend, if allowed to be continued, may, in all probability, percolate into the areas of administration of other departments also. Even before the present kind of indiﬀerence turns out to be disrespect to the judiciary, steps are imperative to be taken to correct such lapses and put the administration on the right track. 8. No individual is above law. No instrumentality of the State, even for that matter the judiciary, is above law. The functions and duties of every citizen, including the members of any service, are governed by the Rule of law and the strict discipline envisaged by the Constitution of India. Disrespect of one citizen by the other, disrespect of one institution by the other, disrespect of one constitutional system by the other is a trend, which should be avoided with all seriousness. Even before this attitude spreads to other areas of administration, it is imperative to take steps to create the awareness among the citizens, notwithstanding their status or capacity in the society and the said awareness should be in the direction of harmony between citizen and citizen, and institution and institution, as well. That is all the serious concern of this Court, and, we are keen to be the parties to the endeavor to create such a harmonious situation in the society, at large. Violation of orders of this Court, or, for that matter, violation of any administrative action of any department, would lead to a perilous situation. 9. However, for the present, we do not propose to initiate any further action against the respondents 1 to 3, except a piece of advice to them to stand ﬁrst as model citizens and next as oﬃcers, and respect every citizen or party, whomsoever they come across. 10. Accordingly, the proposed suo motu further action against the respondents 1 to 3 for not receiving the notices is hereby dropped. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submits that the alleged detenu had already been sent to judicial custody and subsequently, he was released on bail. 12. In view of the aforesaid fact, the question of illegal detention of the alleged detenu need not be gone into and hence the writ petition is liable to be closed. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 26.08.2008 dr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General & Inspector General of Police, State of A.P. Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 2CCs to Advocate General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 5 2CD copies