Uttarakhand High Court
The Complaint vs Shri Mohan on 24 August, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1568 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Hybrid Mode)
Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Negi, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The petitioner before this Court have been a
complainant, who has preferred a complaint against
the respondent No. 3, by invoking the provisions
contained under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand
Police Act of 2007.
The complaint, thus preferred by the
petitioner, had been adjudicated upon by the Police
Complaint Authority, while exercising its powers
under Section 71 of the Act. As a consequence
thereto, the inquiry, which was conducted by the
Tribunal, which was numbered as inquiry No. 4-35
of 2019, Shri Tara Dutt Tiwari Vs. Shri Mohan
Prakash, has been adjudicated by the learned
Tribunal vide its judgment of 14th February, 2020,
wherein, in para 25 of the said judgment, the
following directions was issued by the Tribunal :-
"25 - ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr bl
izfk/kdj.k dk ;g lqfopkfjr fu"d'kZ gS fd foi{kh Jh eksgu
izdk"k] iqfyl vkj{kh la[;k 349 dk LFkkukUrj.k ftyk uSuhrky
ls vU;= djuk mfpr gksxk rkfd f"kdk;rdrkZ ds eu ls Hk;
nwj gks ldsA LFkkukUrj.k n.M dh ifjHkk'kk esa ugha vkrk gSA
blds vfrfjDr jkT; ljdkj ;fn mfpr le>s rks fnukad
2-10-2018 dh jkf= esa foi{kh }kjk fcuk foHkkxh; vuqefr ds
:nziqj eq[;ky; NksM dj gY}kuh esa f"kdk;rdrkZ dks Mjkus o
/kedkus ds d`R; ds fy, foi{kh ds fo:} vuq"kklfud dk;Zokgh
Hkh izkjEHk dj ldrs gSaA bl vk"k; dh laLrqfr jkT; ljdkj dks
fd;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA"
In fact, the observation, which has been made
by the Tribunal rather supports the complaint of the
petitioner, and based on accepting the propriety of
the complaint and its veracity, a direction was
issued to consider, transferring the services of the
respondent No.3 to some other Districts, apart from
Nainital, and also for conducting an inquiry,
through the competent Police authorities, found to
be feasible and competent with regard to the set of
allegations which has been levelled against the
respondent No.3, by the complainant petitioner.
In a nutshell, it could be said that by the
judgment of the Police Tribunal dated 14.02.2020,
in fact, the petitioner's complaint was decided in his
favour.
In that eventuality, the complainant's right to
file a Writ Petition, alleging to be aggrieved against
the judgment or seeking an enforcement of the
judgment of the Tribunal is not a recourse which is
available to him under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, for the reason being that it is
not, that the complaint of the petitioner has been
rejected, rather the forum under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, have been availed by the
petitioner for the purposes of enforcing the
judgment of the Police Tribunal, though which
partly based on documents on the records itself, has
already been complied with; the police authorities,
have conducted the inquiry and thereafter, the
inquiry report has been submitted holding, thereof
that nothing material was found in the complaint of
the petitioner against the respondent No.3.
As far as the opinion of this Court is
concerned, since the exercise of powers by the
Tribunal, is a creation of a statute, where a
complaint under Section 74 of the Act, is to be
entertained and decided, as per the procedure
provided under the Police Act, but in the absence of
there being any executory platform provided for the
complainant, that in itself will not make the Writ
Petition as to be the remedy available to the
petitioner, because even otherwise also under the
provisions of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, the
Police Complaint Authority, only exercises the
powers of adjudicating a complaint and advising an
appropriate action to be taken by the competent
authority, which has been done in the instant case
as apparent by para 25 of the judgement, as already
extracted above.
Since there is no apparent infringement of the
rights of the petitioner, which has been guaranteed
to him under Part-III of the Constitution of India,
the writ petition would not be the remedy available
to the petitioner, for enforcement of the judgment of
the Police Tribunal.
Consequently, I do not find any merits in the
Writ Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 24.08.2021
Shiv
