Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.@mdashBy this public interest litigation the petitioner has prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 be directed to act in
accordance with law and in accordance with Section 23 of the Police Act identifying the miscreants who resorted to wide spread violence on 2nd
July, 2000 at Bidhan Nagar, Saltlake, by identifying them from the news reports and picture from the television reports, arresting them and bring
ing them to book. It is also prayed that the respondents Nos. 1 and 10 be commanded by a writ in the nature of Mandamus not to give any
election duty in future to the respondents Nos. 3 to 9.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this public interest litigation are that 25th June, 2000 was the date fixed for municipal election
for the Bidhan Nagar Municipality and the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 were deputed to see that the civic poll in Saltlake is held peacefully. On the
day of of the poll severe violence took place all around Saltlake and the respondent authorities have failed to maintain peace and law and order in
the area. It is alleged that it will be evident from the newspaper reports and from the television news. It is alleged that in Ward No. 16 of Bidhan
Nagar Municipality the electronic voting machine (EVM) at booth No. 3A became inoperative after polling was completed as a result of which the
ultimate decision of the electorate of that, booth could not be ascertained. The State Election Commission thereafter ordered for repoll which was
held on 2nd July, 2000. From the late night of 1st July, 2000 about 1000 miscreants were brought to Saltlake who started throwing bombs in the
late night of 1st July, 2000 and in the early morning of 2nd July, 2000. Bombing was resorted to scare away the voters which continued up till 2.00
a.m., of 2nd July, 2000. It is alleged that 2nd July, 2000 was a Sunday and polling in Booth No. 3A of Ward No. 16 of Bidhan Nagar
Municipality commenced at around 7. 00 a.m. in the morning and was concluded at 3 p.m. in the evening. At around 11.30 a.m. severe bombing
started and some of the miscreants even went to the extent of beating up Sri Tapan Sikdar, the Hon''ble Minister of State for Tele Communication,
Sri Ranjit Panja, Sri Sudip Bandopadhyay, Sri Bikram Sarkar and Sri Ananda Mohan Biswas, all Members of the Loksabha and Sri Jayanta
Bhattacharjee, Member of Rajya Sabha. It is alleged that others who were beaten were Sri Subrata Mukherjee, Sri Sobhandeb Chatterjee, Sri
Gopal Mukherjee and Sri Sanjay Bakshi, all MLAs. Several gun shots were fired in the air. It is alleged that all these took place in front of
respondents Nos. 2 to 9 that is the DGP, SP,. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate of the area and other officers, but they foiled to
check the violence. As a result of these the genuine voters were prevented from going to the poll booth and exercise their franchise. It is alleged
that the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 failed to discharge their duties despite the fact that the incident has taken place, no effective measures were taken
to check this violence and nor any follow up action was taken by the police. Therefore, by this petition it is prayed that these respondents have
failed to discharge their duties, therefore, they should not be assigned any election duty in the forthcoming election. It is also prayed that the
respondents Nos. 2 to 9 should be directed to take effective steps in accordance with Section 23 of the Police Act and apprehend those
miscreants and culprits who resorted to this kind of violence.
3. An affidavit in opposition was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 9 which was affirmed by the respondent No. 9, the District Magistrate and a
preliminary objection was taken that the present public interest litigation is not a bona fide one and it is motivated by other considerations than that
of the public spirited one and there is remedy provided u/s 76 of the West Bengal Municipal Election Act, 1994. It is stated that on 2nd July, 2000
at Booth No. 3A of Ward No. 16 of Bidhan Nagar Municipality elaborate police arrangements were made and all precautions were taken to
prevent deterioration in any law and order situation particularly because there poll at the said Booth became highly sensitive as the final outcome of
the electoral process of Bidhan Nagar Municipality heavily depended on the same. It is alleged that for maintenance of law order additional forces
were brought from Howrah, 24 Paganas and State Armed Police, 9th Battallion, Krishnagar. It is alleged that apart from a few stray incidents, the
whole process ended peacefully on 2nd July, 2000. It is also pointed out that the administration did not receive any complaints from any bona fide
voters. It is also alleged that there was no complaint from any political party that he or she is a victim of the violence nor any Hon''ble Minister,
Members of Parliament or MLAs have lodged complaint: of the alleged assault on them. Only two complaints were received from the members of
the rival political party and a suo moto complaint was registered by the officer in charge of the Bidhan Nagar South Police Station which are
presently under investigation. It is also submitted that no credence should be given to the news reports as they are news reports not supported by
any affidavit. He denied that he failed to discharge his duty as an Administrative Magistrate and he denied all the allegations made in the petition.
4. An affidavit in reply was filed by the petitioner in which he denied the allegations made by the respondent No. 9 in his affidavit in opposition and
it is pointed out that about 300 miscreant in front of police created the problem and it is also reiterated that bona fide voters were driven out from
the polling station.
5. An affidavit in opposition was also filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 8 which was affirmed by one Kuldip Singh, Superintendent of
Police, North 24 Parganas District (respondent No. 4). He denied the allegations made in the petition and he submitted that effective policing was
done and he also challenged the maintainability of the public interest litigation. He said that few stray incidents in ward No. 4, 6 and 11 took place
and they were promptly attended to by the police and four specific criminal cases were registered and the total of 24 accused persons were
arrested in accordance with law. With regard to the allegation of serious law and order problem occurred on 2nd July, 2000 at booth No. 3A in
Ward No. 16 of Bidhan Nagar Municipality he submitted that no complaint was lodged in any police station. He also denied the allegation that
some of the Ministers, MPs and MLAs Were assaulted. It is also alleged that at about 11. a.m. a sound of bomb blast was heard from the FD
block side near Tank No. 11. Police rushed to the spot and found that a scuffling, brick batting, throwing of chairs were going on in between the
supporters of rival political parties in front of their camps. Police tried to stop this by way of cautioning them but they paid no heed, became more
violent, hurled bombs and even sound of gun firing was heard. Finding no alternative, police had to fire 6 rounds of gas and resorted to lathi
charge. As a result, the mob dispersed and normalcy was restored. It was also pointed out that Shri Tapan Sikdar, Union Minister with his security
guard came out from the BJP election camp and entered into an altercation with supporters of contesting rival parties and the mob became violent
and tried to attack the Union Minister and his security guard when the security guard fired one round from his service revolver for protecting and
for the safety and security of the Hon''ble Minister. It is alleged that a criminal case was registered under Bidhan Nagar South Police Station being
case. No. 112 dated 2nd July, 2000 under Sections 143, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. on the complaint of Mrs. Aparna Gupta, Sabhadhipati,
North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad against Shri Tapan Sikdar and others. It was also alleged that another criminal case in connection with the incident
of the repoll at Bidhan Nagar South Police Station have been registered being Case No. 113 dated 2nd July, 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 325 and 307, I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against 300 unknown persons on a complaint of Shri B.K. Bagchi,
Officer in Charge of the police station himself. It is alleged that one complaint was also received from the petitioner against the three named district
CPI (M) leaders of North 24 Parganas. The said complaint was requested to be registered as FIR and that was recorded under G.D. Entry No.
140 dated 3rd July, 2000. However, it is alleged that the petitioner''s complaint lacked in material particulars and at variance from the allegations
made by himself in paragraph 8 of the public interest litigation and he also withheld this factual averments of filing the FIR in his petition. It is alleged
that a letter was received from the learned counsel for the petitioner dated 3rd July, 2000 requesting that the miscreants shown in the T.V. news be
arrested. In pursuance of that letter a communication was sent to the Learned Counsel for production of copies of video cassettes, still
photographs or any other documents which can identify the miscreants. It is alleged that in pursuance of the case No. 113 dated 2nd July, 2000
one person has been arrested.
6. In this background the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before us that no effective step was taken by the police despite they
themselves have lodged the FIR about the incident thereafter they have failed to discharge their duties. In this connection the learned counsel has
invited our attention to Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 which defines the duties of the police officers. As against this the learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that this public interest litigation is not bona fide motivated and has invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, wherein their Lordships have observed :
But the individual who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of
justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the Court should not allow
itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application, at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a letter addressed
to the Court or even in the form of a regular writ petition filed in Court.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. It is a fact that the incident took place on 2nd July, 2000 and the situation was very
tense. It is also admitted by the police that there was lathi charge and the police had fired tear gases cell (shell). It may be that there was no FIR of
any person who said to have been subjected to assault but the fact remains that the incident took place and it created a great law and order
situation. The police should not have waited for any formal FIR. They have registered a case and it is their duty to have investigated the matter and
brought the miscreants to book. It is admitted that that the case being No. 113 dated 2nd July, 2000 was registered by the police on their own of
the whole incident then this should have been sufficient, but, no prompt action was taken of identifying those miscreants and apprehending them
and bringing them to the book. It is the duty of the police to take effective action by apprehending those miscreants. Section 23 of the Police Act
mandates the duty of the police to maintain public peace and to prevent the commission of the offence and public nuisance, detecting and bringing
offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient ground exists.
Though it is admitted by the SP in his affidavit that the police has registered a case against 300 unknown persons on the complaint of B.K. Batchi,
officer in charge of Bidhan Nagar South Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307, I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, still no effective arrest was made. Mere registration of a case for investigation is not the end of the matter when such a serious law
and order problem has taken place. It is necessary for the police to have effectively investigated the matter and bring the miscreants to the book.
Section 23 of the Police Act gives mandate to the police to prevent commission of such offences as well as to maintain public peace and to prevent
those who disturb the public peace. Simply registering a case does not mean that the police has effectively discharged their duties. Till the time of
the hearing of the matter it was not known that police has really apprehended miscreants who were involved in the matter. In this kind of law and
order problem a helplessness cannot be pleaded on behalf of the police, that only shows their lack of conviction to deal with the matter effectively.
It is true that this public interest litigation should not be permitted to be misused at the hands of the persons who are motivated other than the cause
of justice. Though, allegations have been made by the respondents that his public interest litigation is not bona fide motivated and it is actuated with
consideration other than public purpose. We do not want to comment on this part, however, the fact remains that the incident did take place and
the police registered a case against 300 unknown persons, but since then no serious investigation has been undertaken no arrest has been made
except one. That shows that the police has failed to bring the miscreants to the book. Therefore, we direct that the case which has been registered
by the police should be properly investigated and pursued by the concerned police official to see that those who are involved in the matter should
be brought to book at the earliest. Coming to the question whether those police officials and administrative officers who were entrusted to maintain
law and order for peaceful conduct of the election has failed in their duties and they should not be assigned any election duty is a matter which is
within the domain of the Election Commission and no direction for that part can be given. Every failure of the police officials does not mean that
they should not be entrusted to discharge their duties. This failure should be brought to book it cannot prevent them from discharging their duties.
However, it is expected that the District Magistrate, S.P. and other authorities who are entrusted to maintain law and order should keep a strict
vigil and impartiality in discharge of their duties. The election is a very sacrosanct in democracy and if the election process is being polluted by
persons who are entrusted to conduct the election impartially then this will affect the sustenance of Indian democracy. Therefore, it is expected
from the authorities who are supported to maintain law and order do their duties honestly, objectively, impartially and allow this stream of election
process to flow uninterruptedly without being polluted by irrelevant consideration. However, we dispose of this public interest litigation with a
direction to the authorities to complete investigation of the cases registered by them and bring the miscreants to book at; expeditiously as possible.
No order as to costs.
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.
I agree.