Shri Anil Dattatray Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 260 Bom

JUDGMENT

Vishnu Sahai, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police directly recruited in the year 1990 in the Maharashtra Police, has principally prayed through the present writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that the respondents be directed to consider his name, along with those of the other officers and constables who have been recommended for Sanman Chinha (Insignia) of the State of Maharashtra for the incident which took place on 23.6.1998 at Ravindra Hotel, Dahisar (E), Mumbai. 2. The factual matrix, in brief, from which this petition arises. is as under :

On 23.6.1998 at about 6.50 p.m. Police Constables Anant Phanse and Navnath Shelar (dead) intimated the petitioner on telephone, who at the said time was posted as Police Sub-Inspector at Dahisar Police Station, that the gangster Fakru, residing at Goregaon and two other persons had come to Ravindra Hotel on S. V. Road and were on the verge of committing offence. On receiving the said information, the petitioner along with A.P.I. Hemant (Patel), P.Cs Dadu Govilkar. Pradeep Kadwadkar, Subhash Janga Palle. Anant Phanse, Navnath Shelar and Vilas More left for Ravindra Hotel. Police Constables Anant Phanse (Kanse) and Dadu Govilkar caught hold of a person who later on disclosed his name as Janardhan Ramchandra Pasi. The petitioner noticed that he was trying to take out a firearm from his person. He pounced upon him and disarmed him by removing his pistol which he produced at the police station. After taking out the pistol the petitioner noticed that Police Constables Vilas More and Navnath Shelar had caught hold of the other associate of Janardhan Pasi. To look for other associates of Janardhan Ramchandra Pasi the petitioner went towards the

main gate of the hotel. In the meantime, a bomb explosion took place. The bomb was exploded by Janardhan Pasi. It had been concealed by him in a plastic bag under his vest. In the meantime, the petitioner turned back to take charge of Janardhan Pasi who had been detained by Police Constables . Anant Phanse and Dadu Goviikar on the road. He ordered that he be taken to the police station but he escaped from the clutches of the police. However, he was apprehended by the public which had gathered there and brought to the police station. Thereafter, the petitioner noticed that Constables Vilas More and Navnath Shelar were seriously injured and the person who had been arrested had also been seriously injured. The petitioner also suffered blunt weapon injuries on his stomach and chest. The said persons and the petitioner went to Bhagwati Hospital where they were medically examined. At the said Hospital Constables Vilas More and Navnath Shelar were declared dead.

Thereafter, on the same day (23.6.1998) the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. of the incident at Dahisar Police Station and on its basis C. R. No. 303/ 1998, under sections 302. 307 and 333 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w sections 4 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act and sections 3 and 25 of the Arans Act was registered.

Afterwards the investigation of the said C. R. was taken over by the Crime Branch Department, Unit -X.

After the incident, the petitioner remained in touch with A.P.I. Hemant (Patil) to find out the position in respect of the galiantry award. He was informed that the papers were sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (D.C.P.), Zone-X. He also met the D.C.P. Mr. Venkateshan to find out the position of the gallantry award and the latter informed him that he had recommended all the officers and constables who had participated in the incident for gallantry award. Senior Police Inspector Mr. Lembe also told the petitioner that he had been recommended for the gallantry award. Thereafter, the petitioner made several enquiries about the movement of the file wherein his name had been referred for gallantry award and sent repeated reminders to the authorities who, from time to time, told him that his name had been referred and he would be informed about the same. Thereafter, on 16.6.1999 he submitted a detailed application to the then Home Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr. Gopinath Munde. Thereafter, he learnt that his name had been excluded from the list of gallantry award and others who had participated along with him in the incident dated 23.6.1998 had been recommended for the Sanman Chinha.

Aggrieved by this discrimination, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 935 of 2000 in this Court but vide order dated 1.8.2000 a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : P. S. Patankar and S. S. Parkar, J J.) dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that it was filed on the misconceived premise that the petitioner had not been recommended for gallantry award while six other persons had been recommended for the said award.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

In this Court on behalf of the respondents two affidavits, namely those of Shriranjan Inamdar, Senior Inspector of Police, Dahisar Police Station and Kiran Ramchandra Shelar. Deputy Commissioner of Police, were filed.

Therein reasons were furnished as to why the petitioner as not entitled for Sanman Chinha (Insignia).

3. We have heard Mr. V. T. Tulpule for the petitioner and Mr. I. S. Thakur of the respondents.

The principal submission canvassed by Mr. Tulpule is that the petitioner has been discriminated against because after going through the confidential record the D.C.P., Zone-X, recommended persons, who were accompanying the petitioner, namely Hemant Patil, A.P.I., P.Cs Pradeep Kadwadkar, Dadu Govilkar, Anant (Kanse) and Subhash Palle for Director General Insignia under Government Resolution No. PMD 1290/2244/PR No. 91/POL-I Mantralaya: Mumbai-32, dated 22.7.1992, and Vilas More and Navnath Shelar (Posthumously) for the said Insignia but did not recommend the petitioner. Mr. Tulpule urged that this has violated the petitioner's fundamental right of equality, guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contended that this was not a case of irrational discrimination, as urged by Mr. Tulpule but there were rational and plausible reasons which weighed with the D.C.P., Zone-X in not recommending the petitioner for the said Insignia. To substantiate his submission, he invited our attention to para 4 of the affidavit of Shriranjan Inamdar, Senior Inspector of Police. Dahisar Police Station, and para 6 of the affidavit of Kiran Ramchandra Shelar, Deputy Commissioner of Police.

In para 4 of the former affidavit, Mr. Thakur drew our attention to the averment that the petitioner did not act tactfully and promptly and in case he had fired upon Janardhan Pail alias Janya Pasi this dreadful incident could have been averted.

In para 6 of the latter affidavit, Mr. Thakur invited our attention to the averment that the deponent had not recommended the name of the petitioner for the Insignia because after receiving the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Borivll Division and having a detailed discussion with him, he was of the view that had the petitioner used his service pistol promptly and fired upon Janya Pasi, the latter would not have been able to hurl the hand-grenade in his possession, resulting in the horrible incident wherein two police constables died and some persons received injuries.

5. We have reflected over the rival submissions. In our view, the submission of Mr. Tulpule that the act of Kiran Ramchandra Shelar, the D.C.P., in not recommending the petitioner for the said Insignia was ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory, is misconceived. The two affidavits referred to above, namely those filed by the Senior Inspector of Police Shriranjan Inamdar and the D.C.P. Kiran Ramchandra Shelar make it manifest that the latter was prompted by sufficient reasons in not making the said recommendation in favour of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner has not been able to assail the decision making process. He has not averred in the petition that the respondents acted with mala fides. In the absence of such an averment, we have no reservations in straightaway rejecting his counsel's submission that they acted with mala fides. It should be borne in mind that this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interferes with the

decision making process only if it finds the same to be arbitrary, irrational, illegal, unreasonable, unfair and prompted with mala fides. Where this is not the case, it does not substitute its own opinion with that of the authorities who have taken a particular decision. In the instant case it cannot be said that there was no material before the respondents justifying their conclusion in not awarding the Insignia to the petitioner. This Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has to only ensure that the decision making body has acted in consonance with law and fair-play and there was some material before it justifying the conclusion or the findings reached by it. It is only where there is complete absence of material or the reasons which have weighed in reaching a certain conclusion are so grossly unreasonable, that no prudent person on a proper application of mind would have arrived at them, would this Court interfere with it.

We would do well to remember that in our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not our function to weigh on golden scales the correctness of the reasons which weighed with Kiran Ramchandra Shelar, the D.C.P., in not recommending the petitioner for the Insignia. In our view, the reasons furnished by him in his affidavit cannot be castigated as being arbitrary or prompted with mala fides and neither can it be said that the petitioner was ex facie the victim of irrational discrimination. In such a situation we feel, we would not be justified in interfering with the reasons furnished in the aforesaid two affidavits.

7. In the circumstances, we are constrained to observe that the grievance of the petitioner agitated in the instant writ petition and the prayers contained in it are devoid of substance.

Consequently, we dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule.

Issuance of certified copy expedited.