Dismissed

Fouzia Sultana, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC25 Sept 2012WA/1195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition seeking a judicial enquiry by a First Class Magistrate. The appellants argued bias because the Enquiry Officer was allegedly present during the incident. The High Court found the Enquiry Officer was not at the incident site and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Fouzia Sultana, Vs The State of A.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.1195 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:25.9.2012

¶4

Between: Fouzia Sultana and another.

¶5

… Appellants And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary, Home Department having office at Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No.1195 OF 2012

¶10

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶11

This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3584 of 2011.

¶12

The appellants filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondents in conducting an enquiry regarding the incident that took place at Cherlapalli Central Prison on 31.1.2011 through respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently prayed for a direction to respondent No.1 to conduct judicial enquiry through the First Class Magistrate in respect of the aforesaid incident.

¶13

The point which has been tried to be urged before us as well as before the Hon’ble Single Judge was that the Additional Inspector of General of Jails, respondent No.3 herein, who has been appointed by the authorities as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the matter in question was since present at the time of occurrence of the incident, he cannot hold any enquiry into the matter.

¶14

Initially, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Cherlapalli, respondent No.2 herein filed a counter affidavit in the matter. Subsequently, an additional counter affidavit was filed by the said respondent before the

¶15

Hon’ble Single Judge wherein it is stated that respondent No.3, who has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the incident was actually present in the office and the incident in question had taken place in Papagni Block, which is far away from the office.

¶16

The Hon’ble Single Judge after going through the averments made in the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit, has come to the conclusion that no bias can be attributed to the Enquiry Officer and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellants filed the present appeal.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to impress upon us by reiterating the very same contention that the Enquiry Officer was present at the time of occurrence of the incident and the said fact was not stated properly in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2.

¶18

We have perused the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition.

¶19

It is evident from the counter as well as the additional counter affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Single Judge that the Enquiry Officer was not present at the place of incident. In paragraph-8 of the original counter affidavit, which was filed before the Hon’ble Single Judge, it is stated as follows:

¶20

“ On credible information received that some prisoners of the Papagni Block are using cell phones on 31.1.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., the trainees of State Institute of Correctional Administration, Hyderabad have been brought to conduct searches in the Papagni Block. Keeping in view the information under the leadership of K. Venkateswara Reddy, Vice Principal of State Institute of Correctional Administration, Hyderabad attempted to enter into the Papagni Block for searches. As soon as the officers entered into the Papagni Barrack, the under trial prisoners and Convict prisoners assembled together and attacked and also attempted to kill the officers and staff with deadly weapons, i.e., iron rods, cricket bats, spades etc., and also pelted stones thereby caused injuries, due to which, Deputy Jailor by name,Hanuman Prasad, who received head injury has been sent to Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and another Deputy Jailor, by name, Srinivas Reddy, who sustained fracture injuries on his left hand has been sent to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Further one warder by name Praveen Kumar has sustained blood injuries on his right hand and he is being treated by the Jail Medical Officer.”

¶21

It was also specifically stated in the said counter affidavit that searches were conducted in the Papagni block on receiving information by the authorities and such searches were conducted under the leadership of K. Venkateshwar Reddy, Vice Principal of State Institute of Correctional Administration, Hyderabad. This fact was more clearly mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 before the Hon’ble Single Judge, which reads as follows:

¶22

“The searches were conducted under the supervision of Sri K. Venkateshwar Reddy, Vice Principal, State Institute of Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Hyderabad was present at the administrative block when the incident occurred and he is no way concerned with the incident and searches. In the attack by the prisoners of Papagni Block, one Deputy Jailor, Sri Hanuman Prasad received grievous head injuries and was sent to NIMS, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Sri Srinivas Reddy, another Deputy Jailor was sent to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, as he had sustained fracture on his left hand. The warder, Sri Praveen Kumar, who also received injuries was admitted in the Prison Hospital. The Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had reviewed the incident that had taken place in the prison. The Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had appointed the Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as the Enquiry Officer to enquire in detail on the incident occurred on 31.1.2011 in Papagni Block for taking necessary action but not the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as mentioned by the petitioner.”

¶23

The appellants did not file any reply affidavit to the said counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit at that point of time. However, the Hon’ble Single Judge after considering the averments made in the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and on a perusal of the Enquiry Report, which was made available to the Court, held that the Enquiry Officer was not present when the incident had taken place and therefore, no bias can be attributed to the Enquiry Officer.

¶24

Under the circumstances, we do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. Further, we also do not find that there is any merit in the appeal.

¶25

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶26

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶27

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

¶28

25.09.2012

¶29

pnb

Fouzia Sultana, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fouzia Sultana, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

REliance Infratel Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision

Balala Hakkula Sangham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary

Akter Begum Vs The Osmania University

United Bank of India, Vs M/s Reil Products Limited, (In liquidation)

M/s Shree Raghav Ispath (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Central Power Distribution Company