W.P.(MD)No.

4271 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 11.03.2022
CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

R.R.Saravana Balagursamy ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

Dindigul District.

2.Karuppusamy
The Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station,
Dindigul District.

3.Thangapandi (SSI)
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station.

4.Rajaganesh
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Vadamadurai Police Station,
Dindigul District.

5.The Principal Secretary

Home (Police) Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.

1/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

6.The Director General of Police,

Mylapore
Chennai 600 004. ... Respondents

(Respondents 5 and 6 are suo motu

impleaded as per the order of this Court dated
11.03.2022)

PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to initiate the
disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 2 to 4 for their illegal
act and violation of human right acts and gross violation of supreme
Court guidelines based on the petitioner's representation dated
20.11.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Ravichandran

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The writ on hand has been instituted to direct the first respondent

to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 2 to 4.

2/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

2. The petitioner states that one Mr.Alagarsamy and Nagarajan,

S/o.Gurusamy from the village had resorted to the dispute with reference

to the family landed property. The petitioner states that their family filed

a civil suit in O.S.No.89/2019 before the District Munsif Court. A

judgment and decree was passed in their favour on 28.10.2020.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a complaint to the revenue

officials about the illegal sand quarrying carried out by Mr.Alagarsamy

and Mr.Nagarajan. They sent a complaint to the Electricity Board

regarding usage of electricity for illicit extraction of water in violation of

the electricity regulation and electricity department imposed a fine of

Rs.2,36,000/- and seized the offending vehicle.

4. The petitioner narrates various disputes between their family

and the family of Mr.Alagarsamy and Mr.Nagarajan. Those disputes,

complaints are unconnected with the relief sought for in the present writ

petition and this Court is not inclined to record or offer any opinion in

3/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

respect of such private civil disputes between the parties. For the limited

purpose of dealing with the present writ petition, with reference to the

relief sought for, the petitioner made an allegation that the third

respondent, after met the accused persons, informed the petitioner that

the accused persons are ready to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as bribe to

register an FIR against the petitioner. Accordingly, the third respondent

demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as bribe for the purpose of registering an

FIR against the said Alagarsamy and Nagarajan. It is further contended

that unless the petitioner pays the amount, the police informed that they

cannot register an FIR against Alagarsamy and Nagarajan. The writ

petitioner expressed his inability to pay the huge amount of Rs.3 lakhs

demanded by the third respondent. The third respondent demanded

Rs.2,50,000/- deducting Rs.50,000/-. In view of the fact that the

petitioner has not paid the demanded amount by the second respondent,

one Mr.Thangapandi, Sub Inspector of Police negotiated with the said

Mr.Alagarsamy and Nagarajan and thereafter changed their attitude. The

third respondent, instead of registering an FIR against the offenders,

confined the petitioner illegally in the police station on 23.01.2021. It is

4/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

contended that the second respondent and his subordinates did not allow

the petitioner even to take treatment and illegally confined them in the

police station overnight. The cell phones belong to the petitioner were

also seized. The petitioner further states that the CCTV footage is to be

verified to confirm the illegal detention of the petitioner.

5. Though such allegations of demand is made, the same has not

been substantiated in the writ petition. Mere allegations are insufficient

to initiate action against the public authorities. No doubt, the public

authorities are expected to perform their duties diligently and in a

reasonable manner. They should not provide any scope for raising such

allegations and the conduct of the public officials must be in an expected

level, where a public, who is approaching the police station or any other

department, should feel that they will be getting appropriate remedy

against their grievances. If a sense of doubtful atmosphere prevails in the

Government departments that will result in disastrous consequences and

further will lead to infringement of the rights of the citizen ensured under

the Constitution of India. Therefore, public departments including the

5/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

police department must ensure that the public, who all are approaching

the competent authorities, are not only treated properly but they should

get the sense of feeling that they will be properly heard and their

grievances will be redressed in the manner known to law. Contrarily, if

there is scope for corruption allegations, then all this kind of writ

petitions will be coming before the High Court to initiate departmental

action against the public authorities.

6. In such circumstances, it would be difficult for the Courts to

ensure whether allegations are genuine or not genuine. Constitutional

Courts expect that the affidavits filed are with some substance as it is a

sworn affidavit and therefore, the truth must be stated. It may be easy for

the High Court to dismiss the writ petition merely by stating that the

petitioner has not produced any evidence regarding the demand of bribe.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such

demand will not be made with evidence. Therefore, all such mitigating

circumstances are also prevailing in our country. However, the Courts

have to find out a solution for these allegations, which are all frequently

6/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

raised against the public officials and many number of writ petitions are

filed seeking direction to initiate action against the public officials

including the police officials.

7. In the present case, no doubt this Court cannot conduct a roving

enquiry in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner and the

defence set out by the respondents.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader drew the attention

of this Court with reference to the contradictions in the statement of the

petitioner. He further contended that in view of the fact that criminal

case was registered against the writ petitioner, he was placed under

suspension as he lost some of his service benefits. With that intention, he

filed a writ petition to initiate disciplinary action against the police

officials. This contention also cannot be brushed aside.

9. Cogent consideration of the allegations and counter allegations

made by the petitioner and respondents, this Court is of the considered

7/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

opinion that the police authorities are expected to be more transparent

and the procedures contemplated must be strictly followed. They are not

expected to interfere in respect of civil disputes. However, when an

offence was brought to their notice, then appropriate actions are to be

initiated and the procedures contemplated under law has to be followed

without any deviation so as to avoid any such allegations against the

police officials. The Courts cannot merely rely on the statement

regarding the demand of bribe made against the police authority, unless

complaints are appropriately made without any delay. It is not made

clear whether the petitioner has immediately complained to the higher

officials or to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. When the

petitioner has not immediately registered any complaint before the

Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department or to the concerned higher

authorities by way of proper communication, the statement now made,

after lapse of time in a writ petition may not be simply trusted upon.

10. Perusal of the affidavit reveals that sweeping statements are

made without any substance and such statements made are not even

8/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

submitted by way of complaint to the appropriate authorities. In the

absence of any such proof to establish that the petitioner has taken action

immediately, in respect of such corrupt activities, this Court cannot

entertain and grant relief merely based on the affidavit filed at a later

point of time in a writ petition.

11. The only one contention, which is to be considered by this

Court is that the petitioner states that verification of CCTV footage

would reveal certain facts. When the learned Additional Government

Pleader made a submission that the CCTV footage in a police station will

be maintained for 30 days and thereafter it will be erased automatically,

therefore, now there is no scope for verifying the CCTV footage, Courts

have repeatedly directed that the CCTV footage in police stations must

be stored atleast for a period of 18 months as per the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v.

Baljit Singh & Others dated 02.12.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

made the following observation in Paragraph No.17:

9/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

“17.CCTV systems that have to be installed must

be equipped with night vision and must necessarily
consist of audio as well as video footage. In areas in
which there is either no electricity and/or internet, it shall
be the duty of the States/Union Territories to provide the
same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of
providing electricity, including solar/wind power. The
internet system that are provided must also be systems
which provide clear image resolutions and audio. Most
important of all is the storage of CCTV camera footage
which can be done in digital video recorders and/or
network video recorders. CCTV cameras must then be
installed with such recording systems so that the data is
stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18
months. If the recording equipment is available in the
market today, does not have the capacity to keep the
States, Union Territories and the Central Government to
purchase one which allows storage for the maximum
period possible, and, in any case, not below 1 year. It is
also made clear that this will be reviewed by all the
States so as to purchase equipment which is able to store
the data for 18 months as soon as it is commercially
available in the market. The affidavit of compliance to
be filed by all States and Union Territories and Central

10/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

Government shall clearly indicate that the best equipment

available as of date has been purchased.”

12. Now, best technologically developed CCTV cameras are

available in the market. Therefore, the police station must be installed

with the CCTV cameras, wherein, the footage can be stored atleast for a

period of one year so as to conduct verification or enquiry whenever

serious allegations are raised against the officials and against other

persons. In spite of the orders of the Supreme Court and the High

Courts, the police Department is not equipped with the CCTV cameras

for storage of footage atleast for a minimum period of one year. The very

purpose and object of CCTV cameras will be defeated, if the footage are

automatically erased within 15 or 30 days. Therefore, this Court is of an

opinion that best technologically equipped CCTV cameras must be

installed or storage points must be provided for keeping the CCTV

footage atleast for minimum period of one year.

11/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

13. There is a growing trend of filing writ petitions against the

public officials for initiation of departmental action. The Courts cannot

mechanically issue such directions to initiate departmental action in the

absence of any adjudication of disputed facts. Mere directions will cause

prejudice and hardship to the public officials. Therefore, this Court is of

an opinion that in all such circumstances, the representation or

complaints submitted to the higher officials of the department must be

enquired into properly and only if the petitioner is unable to redress the

grievance, thereafter they must approach the Courts of law. In all such

circumstances, when the superior officials of the police officials received

such complaints, they must conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain the

truth behind the complaint and only thereafter if any decision is taken,

the aggrieved person should approach the Court of law. The said process

is of paramount importance in view of the fact that high Court cannot

conduct an enquiry in respect of such disputed facts.

12/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

14. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India cannot be expanded for the purpose of conducting

an enquiry into the disputed facts. All such facts are to be adjudicated at

the initial stage by the competent authorities. If necessary, the higher

authorities may intimate their decision or otherwise to the complainant

without any loss of time. A mechanism must be provided at the District

Level officials to ensure that the complaint against the officials are dealt

with in a particular manner and an appropriate decision is taken and such

decisions are communicated to the complainant or aggrieved persons so

as to develop a confidence in the mind of the people, which is a

constitutional mandate.

15. However, the practice prevailing as of now is that the

aggrieved persons are sending a complaint and immediately filing a writ

petition before the High Court. High Court cannot conduct an enquiry in

respect of such disputes and mere directions in this regard are sometimes

abused against the public officials. If the High Court passed an order to

13/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

consider the representation, sometimes those directions are abused or

misused and the same will result in causing prejudice to the interest of

the public officials in performance of their lawful duties and such

practice cannot be encouraged by the Courts. All such allegations are to

be enquired into at the first instance. Only after enquiry, if there is

material available on record, then alone actions are to be initiated but not

otherwise. The lawful performance of the duties and responsibilities of

the public officials are to be protected by the Courts. The action taken by

the police officials in good faith has to be certainly protected. Even if

some mistakes occurred during the exercise of lawful power, such

mistakes or actions may not be a ground for initiation of disciplinary

action at the instance of the accused persons.

16. There is a growing trend on the part of the accused in

developing the attitude of initiation of actions against the police officials.

Once a criminal case is registered, then the accused persons are also

attempting to take action against the police officials in order to escape

from the clutches of law. Such practice may not be appreciated. Thus,

14/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

the higher officials must ensure that the procedures are followed by the

subordinate authorities in accordance with law and in the event of any

complaint, appropriate preliminary enquiry is to be conducted. The

person must be informed to the effect that the complaints are either

substantiated or not substantiated or otherwise.

17. Regarding the CCTV footage, this Court is of an opinion that

appropriate measures are to be taken and in the absence of taking any

such measures, the very purpose and object of installation of CCTV

cameras are defeated. It is not as if the CCTV cameras are installed in

police stations, but it must be functional properly and the CCTV footages

are stored at least for a minimum period of one year or 18 months, as the

case may be, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited

supra. For this purpose, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home

(Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and the

Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 are suo motu

impleaded as respondent Nos.5 and 6.

15/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

18. With reference to the relief sought for in the present writ

petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not

substantiated the allegations and made sweeping statements, which may

not be trusted upon and the petitioner has not immediately made such

complaints before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption or before the higher

authorities concerned.

19. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to

pass the following order:

(i) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is rejected;

(ii) The respondents 5 and 6 are directed to ensure that the footages

recorded in the CCTV cameras installed in Police Stations are stored and

protected for a minimum period of one year or eighteen months and all

measures are directed to be initiated to install footage storage facilities

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order;

(iii)The sixth respondent – Director General of Police is directed to

ensure that the recorded CCTV camera footages in Police Stations are

16/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

stored properly and in the event of failure on the part of the subordinate

officials, all appropriate actions are taken for their negligence, lapses and

derliction of duty under the relevant Service Rules and as per law.

20. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

costs.

11.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
RR / krk

Note: (1)The Registry is directed to list this matter, before this Court
'for reporting compliance' after two weeks.

To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.

2.The Principal Secretary

Home (Police) Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.

3.The Director General of Police,

Mylapore
Chennai 600 004.

17/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

RR / krk

W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022

11.03.2022

18/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis