IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2010 Mahesh Chandra Bhatt …......Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. ...Respondents. Present: Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Date of Order : 2.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, through the instant Writ Petition, invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the Revenue Police has been carrying out the responsibilities of the Police under the Code of Criminal Procedure in Hill districts of the State. In view of the above, Patwaries, Kanoongoes and other Revenue Officials have been carrying out the responsibilities of the Police in 65 per cent of the total area of the State of Uttarakhand. In May 2008, Revenue Officials expressed their disinclination to render Police duties. Eversince then, they have not been performing Police duties. To remedy this situation, the State Government directed Naib Tehsildars by an order dated 10.6.2008 to perform Police duties, which were earlier being performed by Patwaries and Kanoongoes. The order issued by the State Government proved to be an effort in futility, inasmuch as, the union of Naib Tehsildars resolved not to render Police duties. It is, therefore, that the instant Writ Petition came to be filed as a Public Interest Litigation alleging, that First Information Reports were not being registered in Hill districts i.e. in Revenue Patwari Chowkies, nor is any investigation being carried out in respect of claims of breach of criminal law. 2. As an interim measure, consequent upon a statement having been made to this Court, the following order was passed on 21.4.2010:- “Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 states, that he has obtained instructions from the concerned quarters and he has been informed that instructions have been issued to the Senior Superintendents of Police / Superintendents of Police of different districts to ensure that First Information Reports are registered at 2 the nearest Police Station/Post Post, where the offence has been committed, in case as per the existing practice complaints are not registered by Patwaris / Kanungos / Naib Tehsildars.” 3. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3 has been filed. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the remaining respondents. Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the aforesaid counter affidavit, which are relevant to the cause in hand, are being extracted hereunder:- “16. That the contents of para 22 of the writ petition are misconceived, erroneous and as such are denied. As claimed above, on being discard by the Patwaris and Kanoongos to perform the Police duty, the wok to maintain law and order in the area of Revenue Police was being done by the Naib Tehsildar and thereafter on refusal by them to perform the Police work, the concerned Police Station and Police Chauki are directed by the District Magistrate to lookafter Police work in the Revenue Police area. Moreover, simultaneously exercise is being done to convince the Revenue Officials to perform the Police duties in their respective area of operation. It is submitted that in the State to prevent illegal mining and illicit felling of trees, the concerned Mining Department and the Forest Department are taking necessary action. 17. That the contents of para 23 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence, are denied. It is submitted that earlier the Patwari Mahasang refused to take charge of additional area, but in the meeting of the said Mahasangh held in the month of February 2010, the said proposal has been cancelled and the Patwaris are looking after the work of additional areas including the area of their respective posting. 18. That the contents of para 24 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence, are denied. It is submitted that law and order is maintained in the hill area of the State. It is submitted that to control import of illicit liquor within the State, the Excise Department is taking prominent action by posting the personnel of S.S.B. in the border area and to prevent illegal mining and illicit felling of trees the action is taken by the concerned Mining Department and Forest Department of the State. In the matter of intoxicants, the Narcotic Department of the State is controlling any illegal activities by the antisocial aliments.” A perusal of the assertions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 reveals, inter alia, that District Magistrates have already issued instructions to Police Stations and Police Chowkies to look-after the Police work in the Revenue Police Area. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that First Information Reports are being duly registered and investigation into criminal offences alleged therein is being duly conducted by the 3 Officials posted in the concerned Police Station / Police Chowki. As such, it is submitted that there is no difficulty in maintaining the law and order resulting out of the determination of Patwaries and Kanoongoes not to render duties earlier being rendered by the Revenue Police. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, as is apparent from the factual position noticed from the extract of the counter affidavit reproduced hereinabove, that all efforts are being made to restore the work in the Revenue Police Areas to Patwaries and Kanoongoes. 4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the primary grievance raised through the instant Public Interest Litigation has been resolved, inasmuch as, First Information Report, as also, investigation thereon is now being carried out by Police Stations / Police Chowkis concerned, in terms of the directions issued by the concerned District Magistrates. We are also satisfied, that efforts are being made by the State Government to restore the work with Patwaries and Kanoongoes, which they were originally discharging hithertofore. The instant Writ Petition must, therefore, be deemed to have served its purpose. 5. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 2.7.2010 Rathour