While Harassing Owner, Police Officer Forcibly Shuts Canteen Citing Irrelevant FIRs, Bombay HC Directs Him To Pay From Salary Account
|The Bombay High Court, while dealing with a purported high handedness of the Police department, has imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on a police officer, to be paid from his salary account, for allegedly harassing a canteen owner by prohibiting him from operating the S. T. canteen on the premises of a bus stand from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. Noting the FIRs so cited as a reason for the prohibition, the bench observed,
“We find that the copies of the First Information Reports placed on record have absolutely nothing to do with the functioning of this canteen”.
Holding that as long as the petitioner is exempted and duly registered under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act and has a contract with the M.S.R.T.C. to operate the canteen, no authority would interfere in the functioning of his canteen, a bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y. G. Khobragade noted, “…It is quite apparent that Respondent No.5 (Asstt. Police Inspector) has not acted judiciously. Rather than ensuring that a Patrolling vehicle being kept available for protecting the citizens who reach the bus stand in the late hours after reaching the destination, the said respondent appears to be blaming the petitioner for operating his canteen. If the Respondent No.5 is not able to curb thefts, robberies and ensure law and order, the deficiency lies with him. It is obvious to us that he has harassed the petitioner”.
Advocate J. M. Murkute appeared for the petitioner, AGP S. W. Munde appeared for the respondent – State and Advocate A. B. Dhongade appeared for respondent No.2.
In the pertinent matter, the Petitioner’s canteen is registered under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, is a valid license holder and under Section 4 of Act is under Column 2 and Entry No.13 of Schedule-II.
The entry at Sr.No.13 in Schedule II exempts the stalls, refreshment rooms and canteens at the railway stations, docks, wharves, airports and the State Transport Bus Stations, from Sections 19, 20 and 23, where Section 19 pertains to the opening and closing hours.
The Assistant Police Inspector contending that localities and gundas come to the canteen during the night hours in a drunken stage, and harass ladies and cause thefts, therefore the canteen should be shut down, had placed on record certain FIRs before the Court.
However, noting the FIRs, the bench observed that the offences mentioned in it had either taken place in some garden, or the theft mentioned had took place while the complainant was boarding the bus, or was of a motorcycle that was stolen from the parking of the bus stand etc.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the disobedience of the earlier order dated May 2, 2014, the bench was of the opinion that the conduct of the Police Officer cannot be countenanced.
The bench further stated that it could have recommended a disciplinary action by following adhering to the principles of natural justice, however chose o impose cost.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ram v. State of Maharashtra
Click here to read/download the Judgment