AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 This Writ Petition is filed to declare action of 2nd respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodada Division, Suryapet District, in promulgating
order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’) passed in case No.E/144/2021, against the petitioners
herein, as illegal and consequentially to set aside the above said order.
Heard Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ram Mohan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, learned
Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries and perused the record.
The 1st petitioner is the Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. It has been functioning from 19.11.1992 onwards. There are
disputes among the Members of 1st petitioner Society. Complaints were also given with regard to functioning of 1st petitioner Society and enquiry was
ordered. Its Members have filed writ petitions and this Court granted interim orders. Several crimes were registered against the two rival groups of
the 1st petitioner Society and also the villagers of Kalakova Village, Munagala Mandal, Suryapet District, Therefore, on the request made by 3rd
respondent-Station House Officer, Munagala Police Station, 2nd respondent has promulgated the proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.
The sequence of events as per the pleadings of the petitioners in the present writ petition are as follows:-
i) 1st petitioner Society was formed on 16.11.1992 as per the provisions of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.
ii) On the complaint lodged by Mr.Buri Ramaiah, cousin of 3rd petitioner herein, an enquiry was ordered and 7th respondent was directed to conduct
enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted and 7th respondent has submitted report to the Commissioner of Fisheries on 17.10.2017 and as per
the said report, 1st petitioner Society has been functioning properly. It has been sharing its profits to its Members equally and there are no complaints
whatsoever against any Member.
iii) 3rd respondent granted fishing rights to the 1st petitioner Society and some villagers of said Kalakova village made representation to 7th respondent
requesting not to accord permission to 1st petitioner Society to catch fish in the pond during the year 2017. Therefore, 7th respondent did not give
fishing rights. The Society has filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1109 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 26.02.2019, disposed of the said writ
petition, without expressing any opinion with respect to fishing rights of the 1st petitioner Society and the alleged acceptance of the lease amount by
the respondents therein, directed 2nd respondent therein/the Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Government of Telangana, to examine the claim of
the petitioner and issue necessary instructions to his subordinates to take appropriate action within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
iv) Pursuant to the said order, fishing rights were given to 1st petitioner Society for catching of fish.
v) On the request made by 1st petitioner Society, 7th respondent has granted fishing rights vide proceedings dated 16.12.2020 on payment of requisite
lease amount. Pursuant to the said letter, 1st petitioner Society was taking steps to catch fish in the subject pond and Sarpunch of the said village has
made a representation, dated 01.02.2021 to 8th respondent-the District Collector, Suryapet, requesting him to conduct open enquiry. 8th respondent
has ordered an enquiry and appointed the Additional District Collector, (Local Bodies) as an Enquiry Officer who in turn issued notice dated
02.02.2021. Accordingly, some of the petitioners and other Members of 1st petitioner Society vide representation dated 11.02.2021 informed the same
to the Additional District Collector(Local Bodies) stating that the allegations made against 1st petitioner Society and its Members is false and in the
earlier enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has given categorical findings stating that 1st petitioner Society has been functioning properly and sharing profits
properly and there are no complaints whatsoever from any Member.
vi) Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, an Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry further. Therefore, 1st petitioner Society has filed a
writ petition vide W.P.No.4864 of 2021 questioning the said enquiry and the notice dated 02.02.2021. 2nd respondent has also issued notice dated
15.03.2021 directing the 12 Members to appear for enquiry. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 have filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.6941 of 2021 wherein this Court granted interim stay. The said order was communicated to the 2nd respondent herein.
vii) Even then 2nd respondent has issued another notice dated 22.03.2021 directing the Members of 1st petitioner Society to appear for enquiry.
Questioning the same, another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.7920 of 2021 was filed. This Court vide order dated 31.03.2021 granted stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the said notice dated 23.02.2021 issued by 2nd respondent herein.
viii) According to the petitioners, the said crimes were of the year 2019 wherein Investigating Officers have completed investigation and filed charge
sheets and Calendar Cases/ Sessions Cases are pending. There are no cases registered in 2020 and 2021.
ix) A case in Cr.No.36 of 2021 was registered by mentioning the offence as Section 107 of the CrPC. This Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 in
W.P.No.4121 of 2020 quashed the proceedings in the said crime. Without considering the
x) Janga Mariamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and said case and without confirming the opinion as required under Section 145(1) of
Cr.P.C. 2nd respondent has promulgated proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC, by way of impugned order dated 27.03.2021.
x) 1st petitioner Society has to catch fish which they are doing for the past several years. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.
xi) Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sub-Divisional Magistrate
2008(2) ALD (Crl) 365.
A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that there are 5 crimes mentioned in the said impugned proceedings. It is relevant to note that this
Court has quashed the proceedings in Cr.No.36 of 2021 vide order dated 21.09.2020 in Crl.P.No.4121 of 2020. It is also specifically mentioned in the
impugned order that the Members of the 1st petitioner Society divided into two groups and the details of the said groups are specifically mentioned in
the impugned order as group-A and group-B. There are 8 Members in Group-A and 12 Members in Group-B. Group-A supported to 3rd petitioner
herein and Group-B supported to village Sarpunch and MPTC. Kalakova village is sensitive and faction village and both parties are trying to dominate
each other and also trying to commit untoward incidents. There is a chance to occur grave crime because of above fish pond issue. 3rd respondent
arranged picket at fish pond.
With the said facts, 3rd respondent has requested 2nd respondent herein promulgating the order under Section 145 of the CrPC in respect of the
subject pond under the revenue limits of Kalakova village until finalization to maintain Law and Order. 6th respondent-The Tahsildar, Munagala
Mandal, has also informed 2nd respondent regarding the dispute of 1st petitioner-Society stating that there may be a clear chance that the villagers of
Kalakova village to divide into two groups and quarrel with each other and cause disturbance at the time of enquiry and finally requested 2nd
respondent to promulgate order under Section 145 of the CrPC in order to avoid untoward incident. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the
district authorities have appointed 2nd respondent as Enquiry Officer for the above said fish pond dispute.
Referring to the said report of 6th respondent-The Tahsildar, Munagala, and 3rd respondent- The Station House Officer, Munugala Police Station,
2nd respondent-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodada Division, has promulgate proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC. It is relevant to note
that a perusal of the proceedings dated 16.12.2020 issued by the Fisheries Development Officer, Suryapet, would reveal that he has granted fishing
rights to 1st petitioner Society for the period from 02.12.2020 to 30.06.2021 to catch fish in voora cheruvu of Kalakova village of Munugala Mandal,
Suryapet district. Thus, the said period was expired on 30.06.2021. The petitioner did not file any proof to show that the said period was extended
thereafter. Admittedly, this Court vide order dated 22.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.6941 of 2021 granted stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 15.3.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and the said order is still subsisting as on today. This Court
vide order dated 31.03.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.7920 of 2021 granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to notice dated 22.03.2021
issued by the 6th respondent.
The above stated facts would reveal that there are disputes between the Members of 1st petitioner Society. They have divided into two groups. The
above said crimes were registered against the Members of 1st petitioner-Society. In the said crimes, the Investigating Officers have completed
investigation and laid charge sheets. Calendar Cases and Sessions Cases are also pending against them.
7th respondent-the District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet, has filed counter stating that upon enquiry, it is found that 1st petitioner Society was
functioning properly and it has been sharing profits to its Members equally and there are no complaints from any of the primary Members of 1st
petitioner Society. It is also further stated that the said fact was reported to Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Telangana. One Bura
Ramaiah, cousin of 3rd petitioner made complaints. Sarpunch of the said village has also submitted a representation. Proceedings were issued by the
Commissioner of Fisheries with a direction to remove the ineligible Members. Thus, a perusal of the counter filed by 7th respondent would reveal that
there are disputes pending between the Members of 1st petitioner Society.
The 3rd respondent has submitted written instructions which would also reveal that there are disputes between the two groups of the Members of
1st petitioner Society with regard to the subject pond. The crime numbers were also specifically mentioned. In the said written instructions, it is also
specifically mentioned that on 25.03.2021 at 10.00 hours, some Members of 1st petitioner Society came to 3rd respondent-The Station House Officer,
Munagala Police Station, and lodged Telugu written complaint in which they complained that 3rd respondent herein was benefitted and enjoying
income from fishing since 25 years and they were approached the District Collector, Suryapet, who in turn, appointed Special Officer for enquiry of
the subject pond. There is Law and Order problem in Kalakova village in respect of subject pond and there is likelihood of causing breach of public
peace and tranquility. 3rd respondent is unable to settle the issue of the subject pond. The details of two groups are also specifically mentioned. There
is possibility of Law and Order problem and therefore, they have arranged picket at the subject pond and therefore, 3rd respondent has requested 2nd
respondent to promulgate order under Section 145 of the CrPC.
The above stated facts would reveal that there are disputes between the Members of 1st petitioner Society and also enquiries ordered and orders
granted by this Court in the above said two writ petitions. Criminal cases are also pending. As stated above the period for catching fish in the subject
pond issued under proceedings dated 16.12.2020 by the Fisheries Development Officer, Suryapet, was expired on 30.06.2021. As stated above, the
petitioner did not file any proof to show that the said period was extended or fresh proceedings were issued to cater the fish in the said pond.
It is relevant to note that the contention of the petitioners herein that fish is there in the subject pond. They have to catch fish, otherwise, fish will
die.
In view of the impugned order, the Members of 1st petitioner Society are unable to catch the fish in the subject pond. Therefore, due to the said
action of 2nd respondent in promulgating the order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., and the same is causing financial loss and hardship to the
Members of 1st petitioner Society. According to them, they are dependant only on the said fishing rights.
Earlier, this Court, by considering the fact that the 1st petitioner Society has to catch fish by paying lease amount, vide order dated 26.02.2019 in
W.P.No.1109 of 2019 directed the Commissioner of Fisheries Department to examine the claim of the petitioner and issue necessary instructions to
his subordinates and to take appropriate action within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As stated above, even now, according to the petitioners, fish is there in the subject pond and there is every possibility of death of the fish due to
rains.
Section 145(1) of the CrPC reads as ‘Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information
that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall
make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person
or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the
subject of dispute’.
A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that 2nd respondent has relied upon the report of 3rd respondent-The Station House Officer,
Munugala Police Station and 6th respondent-The Tahsildar, Munugala, wherein both of them have informed 2nd respondent about the disputes among
the Members of 1st petitioner Society and causing of disturbance to peace and tranquility in the village. Therefore, referring to the same, on being
prima facie satisfied, 2nd respondent has promulgated proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.
In Janga Mariamma (supra), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, examined the proceedings issued under Section 145 of
the CrPC and also the facts therein and gave a finding that the said proceedings are in violation of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. whereas, in the present
case, 2nd respondent has referred report of 3rd respondent and 6th respondent. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different from the facts of
the present case.
In fact, as per Section 145(5) of the CrPC, the petitioners can approach 2nd respondent and submit their claim with a request to cancel the
impugned proceedings but the petitioners herein did not do so.
However, considering the fact that there is fish in the subject pond and there is every possibility of death of the fish, this Writ Petition is disposed
of with the following directions:-
i) Respondent Nos.2 to 8 are directed to take all necessary steps to resolve the issue of subject pond and issue necessary proceedings to 1st petitioner
Society for catching the fish in the subject pond in order to save fish, on receipt of proper lease amount and by providing necessary police protection
within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii) 8th respondent-the District Collector, Suryapet, is specifically directed to look into the matter and resolve the issue by taking all necessary steps and
to avoid untoward situation in the village.
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.