BY THE COURT:
The petitioner is a retired and well reputed Inspector General of Police. He resides in Jyoti Nagar locality of Jaipur. Several years after his retirement, a new Vidhan Sabha complex was constructed in close proximity of the petitioner's house. Being the center of the legislative activities the Vidhan Sabha per se also attracted streams of processions and demonstrations on regular basis, more particularly during the period when it was in Session. The processions and demonstrations no doubt have entailed discomfort to the petitioner both on account of obstructing the egress and ingress to his house and also on account of persistent noise, and commotion during the processions and demonstrations. The demonstrators have on occasions also vandalized the boundary wall of the petitioner's house.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Human Rights Commission, Rajasthan. Thereupon vide order dated 24-9-2012, the Human Rights Commission had proceeded to issue directions to the Additional Home Secretary to ensure that the petitioner's right to a peaceful life was protected and maintained. For this purpose it was directed that during the Vidhan Sabha Sessions it should be ensured that no crowds should be allowed to collect in front of the house of the petitioner or breach the peace in the area; that demonstrators were not allowed to use loud-speakers; movement of traffic in front of the petitioner's house not obstructed and flow of traffic should be ensured; the general public participating in the demonstrations should be prevented from vandalizing the boundary wall of the petitioner's house in any manner whatsoever; and the barricading on road near the petitioner's house should be avoided. The order dated 24-9-2012 passed by the Commissioner was forwarded to the State Government for necessary action on 21-1-2013 with reference to Section 18(5) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
It appears that the petitioner had also approached this court by filing a DB Civil Writ Petition No. 17929/2012. The Division Bench of this court vide order dated 16-1-2013, taking note of the fact that the issue was then pending before the Human Rights Commission, refused to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The present writ petition has been filed in the aforesaid background facts of the case with the following prayer:-
1. Pending final decision on the writ petition, Ex-parte ad interim orders may be issued to stay all demonstrations of mobs, use of loud speakers, installation of barricading and disruption of pedestrian and other traffic movement, on the road in front of the petitioner's house, blocking the entry and exit of the petitioner's house, and stopping the abnoxious practice by the policemen, to urinate along the side-wall of the petitioner's house, as earlier directed by the Hon'ble H.R Commission.
2. An independent and objective enquiry, under court supervision, preferably by a judicial officer or any other authority not subject to the control and influence of the 2 respondents, or other-senior Secretariat or police officers, to determine the role and accountability-both legal and administrative, of the Police Commissioner and his men on the spot, for their deliberate negligence, possible malafide connivance and abetment, in permitting trespass, vandalism, damage to the main gate, and the name plate, hooliganism and chaos, and in subverting the human rights of the petitioner, and violation of the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, I.P.C, noise pollution rules, Rajasthan Police Act, and Environment Protection Act.
3. Directing the State Government to reconsider the suitability of present incumbent, for the job of Police commissioner or any other field post, in the context of his questionable role and conduct projected in this petition. In any case, he has been holding the charge of Jaipur City for too long. This Hon'ble court had earlier directed the former D.G, A.C.B, M.K Devrajan, to relinquish his charge within 24 hours and report to the D.O.P for further orders, in the context of his alleged controversial activities.
4. Taking appropriate view about the wanton disregard, and violation of the orders of the Hon'ble State H.R Commission, by respondents No. 1 and 2 and ignoring its notice and not bothering to send any response even, and fixing their accountability.
5. Specific directions for preventing harassment to the senior citizens, and ensuring for them a peaceful and dignified life, consistent with the concept of human rights.
Mr. R.P Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that following the directions by the Human Rights Commission under its order dated 24-9-2012, and even otherwise being a sensitive government, taking into consideration the difficulties of the petitioner-largely occasioned by the geographical location of the petitioner's house-it has been decided that in the course of demonstrations and processions to Vidhan Sabha a Deputy Commissioner of Police will be put In charge of the area where residential house of the petitioner is situate to ensure that law and order more particularly next to the petitioner's house is well maintained. He submits that a decision has also been taken to keep barricading away to a distance at least 30 feet, 50 feet and 150 feet respectively on the three accesses to the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that even in a worst case scenario demonstrations, as a part of democratic right in the country, police will ensure that the petitioner shall have at least two accesses to his residential house and arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the demonstrators are prevented from vandalizing the boundary wall of the petitioner's house. It is further submitted that however as far as use of loud-speakers is concerned, there is no power with the State Government to prohibit them except under the provisions of the Noise Pollution Act-which power the government will consider exercising from time to time as warranted, and in any event the use of loud-speaker is only for a short periods during the Sessions of the Vidhan Sabha when demonstrations in the area are at their maximum.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no order on the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be passed, as the State Government has already taken all requisite action within its powers to ensure that the peace and quiet of the petitioner, living in his residential house at Jyoti Nagar locality in proximity to Vidhan Sabha is not unduly disturbed. It would be expected that measures detailed by the Additional Advocate General in his submissions before this court would be implemented strictly.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.