Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
13. 8.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.SR.No.64992 of 2013 C.Bhuvaneswari .. petitioner in person vs.
1. The Judge CRP Court, High Court, Chennai 2. The Judge City Civil Court XIII Asst. Chennai 3. The PJ Family Court II Addl. Chennai 4. B.Nagendran No.6, 5th Lane, KHR, Ayyanavaram Chennai- 23 5. Kishore Kumar IPS AK56/1, guru nivas, 1st flr, 10th main road Annanagar, Chennai 40 6. Sarala Devi and Thillip kumar AK56/1, guru nivas, 1st flr, 10th main road Annanagar, Chennai 40 7. Senthil and Nityanandam AK56/1, guru nivas, 2nd flr, 10th main road Annanagar, Chennai 40 .. Respondents This writ petition SR No.64992 of 2013, is filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 21, directing the separation of the suit property of OS.1164/2007 from the rest of the building as K4 constables knocking on the property door demanding money from the petitioner, twice and harassing her children and herself till date has developed into an attack on the rights to live in dignity in the future for the petitioner under Article 21. This knocking on property doors was followed by respondents 5, 6 and 7 saying the petitioner came from a bad family followed by the over educated IPS Respondent refusing to sign the petitioners without prejudice letter and having a physical fight when OS1164/2007 was in court. The date of the physical fight was the date mentioned in the injunction obtained in OS.1164/2007 and all these incidents are marked evidences in court. The collusion of K4 with the one and same lawyer who applied for anticipatory bail and respondent 4 during 2 incidents when K4 constables knocked on property doors as well as the contempt of injunction act has led to attacks on the rights to life and live with human dignity encompassing within its fold some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons/petitioner concerned. Also issue a direction to respondent 4 who is in collusion with K4 in the above mentioned civil case, to show cause his full income of over 10 lacs p.a. and pay maintenance as per minimum IT Rules as on date 5 lacs p.a. Respondent 4 has also said in public that the petitioner has come from a bad family in the presence of vigilance and The Hindu. The vigilance and The Hindu are part of a defamation case by a stranger faculty against the petitioner which is still pending, for over a decade in this High Court, in a CRP to which the petitioner is not party to. Recording in public in Criminal, Civil and Family Court case that the petitioner has come from a bad family seems to be a pass time for meddlesome busybodies. The petitioner has petitioned for 5 lacs as interim and this is mentioned in order dated 28.8.2012 of FCOP31502010 page-5 IA26392012. This mention in the interim order and IA has been ignored. Non payment of maintenance for 3 years has developed today into another attack on the rights to livelihood and life for the petitioner under Article 21. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. For petitioner : M/s.C.Bhuvaneswari petitioner-in-person ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.Jaichandren,J.) This W.P.SR.No.64992 of 2013, is listed before this Court, today, under the caption For Maintainability.
2. We heard Ms.C.Bhuvaneswari, the petitioner-in-person.
3. Ms.C.Bhuvaneswari, the petitioner-in-person, had filed the papers relating to the present case before the Registry of this Court with the following prayer: ".To issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 21, directing the separation of the suit property of OS.1164/2007 from the rest of the building as K4 constables knocking on the property door demanding money from the petitioner, twice and harassing her children and herself till date has developed into an attack on the rights to live in dignity in the future for the petitioner under Article 21. This knocking on property doors was followed by respondents 5, 6 and 7 saying the petitioner came from a bad family followed by the over educated IPS Respondent refusing to sign the petitioners without prejudice letter and having a physical fight when OS1164/2007 was in court. The date of the physical fight was the date mentioned in the injunction obtained in OS.1164/2007 and all these incidents are marked evidences in court. The collusion of K4 with the one and same lawyer who applied for anticipatory bail and respondent 4 during 2 incidents when K4 constables knocked on property doors as well as the contempt of injunction act has led to attacks on the rights to life and live with human dignity encompassing within its fold some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons/petitioner concerned. Also issue a direction to respondent 4 who is in collusion with K4 in the above mentioned civil case, to show cause his full income of over 10 lacs p.a. and pay maintenance as per minimum IT Rules as on date 5 lacs p.a. Respondent 4 has also said in public that the petitioner has come from a bad family in the presence of vigilance and The Hindu. The vigilance and The Hindu are part of a defamation case by a stranger faculty against the petitioner which is still pending, for over a decade in this High Court, in a CRP to which the petitioner is not party to. Recording in public in Criminal, Civil and Family Court case that the petitioner has come from a bad family seems to be a pass time for meddlesome busybodies. The petitioner has petitioned for 5 lacs as interim and this is mentioned in order dated 28.8.2012 of FCOP31502010 page-5 IA26392012. This mention in the interim order and IA has been ignored. Non payment of maintenance for 3 years has developed today into another attack on the rights to livelihood and life for the petitioner under Article 21. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray".
4. The Registry of the High Court had returned the papers filed by the petitioner-in-person asking for certain clarifications, which read as follows: ".Since the alternative remedy is available before Civil Court, it may be stated how the Writ Petition is maintainable before this Hon'ble High Court. Subject to maintainability Prayer needs clarification".
5. The petitioner-in-person had represented the case papers with the endorsement stating that the case filed by the petitioner-in-person is maintainable as a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While representing the case papers, the petitioner-in- person had raised the following 'grounds of maintainability'. ".This writ is maintainable under article 226 of the Constitution as:
1. Page 52 and 53 of this index shows that K4 constables came knocking at my door demanding money. This incident has been recorded in the commissioners office and in all legal departments by IPS Kiran Bedi of Safer India in 2008. I have made many declarations in the commissioners office which are all marked evidences. The flat was purchased in May 2006, shifted into our new flat in June 2006 and the K4 constables came knocking at our door in July 2006 and Aug 2006 a few days after we shifted into our newly built house.
2. The IPS respondent 5,6 and 7 said that the petitioner came from a bad family and refused to sign my without prejudice letter when the petitioner wanted to pay her maintenance for the month. This refusal was followed by a written threat to cut off water supply to the petitioner flat. An interim injunction to maintain status quo on suit property was obtained from the courts with the date 5/3/2007 mentioned on it. On that date a physical fight occurred between respondent 4 and the IPS within suit property and the IPS later went out of suit property to complain at K4. The co-incidence of dates was overlooked. Page 40 to 44 shows these incidents. All these illegal events are for maintenance payment and to disturb the peaceful possession of property by the petitioner, as respondent 5, 6, and 7 are strangers to petitioner. The flat was purchased in May 2006, shifted into our new flat in June 2006 and the refusal to sign the petitioners maintenance without prejudice letter by the IPS defendant was in Feb 2007-8 months days after we shifted into our newly built house.
3. Presently this suit property is suit property for WP3178/2013. The petitioner had not been living in the suit property which has been vacant from April 2009 to March 2013. From March 2013 due to non payment of interim by respondent 4 the petitioner has moved into her own flat after filing WP3178/2013. Today the petitioner has not been given a receipt nor accounts by the defendants to whom the petitioner sends EMO for maintenance. Apart from EMO the petitioner has sent 2 cheques for maintenance both of which have not been returned nor encashed nor given a subject to realization receipt. By not giving a receipt after accepting 1000/- and 2 cheques the defendants prove that they do not have any accounts for monthly maintenance taken from the petitioner. This leaves room for more fights, threats and action on such threats to cut off water, as the reason for payments via EMO and cheques is an assumption with no proof.
4. Index page 45 to 48 shows that 3 lawyers, E.Palani, G.Prabakaran and S.Shankar, have projected an imagination that I will be arrested on 8.3.2007 due to a complaint given on me at K4 by an IPS Kishore when there is a case in the court pending against the same IPS Kishore initiated by me and respondent 4. An anticipatory bail was obtained. On 13.3.2007 my lawyer PBR filed an affidavit on my behalf praying that the IPS defendant Kishore be arrested by K4. This pertains to 2007 issue but K4 is still targeting my daughters and me to such an extent that we cannot live in peaceful possession of our own flat. I paid for this illegal anticipatory bail and 3 lawyer fees.
5. Page 44 of this index is a letter from an IPS Arumugam to keep only Nagendran ".safe". while my daughters and I were left out of police dealings with him.
6. The injunction was a protection of law given to the petitioners family which the respondent 4 dirtied with a fight and then crossed floors and got protection from the police for himself alone. This behavior in collusion with the K4 police after its two constables had knocked on my door for money 6 months before the incident has made it unsafe for the petitioner to live in her own flat for 4 years without separation from the rest of the building and also proves that the transfer of property was an unsafe one thereby making the whole investment unsafe.
7. Lawyer Sudha Ramalingam took Rs.20000/- in July 2008 for the civil case OS11642007 and refused to allow me to exercise my birth right of 1st appeal in March 2009 when the case was dismissed. She did not refund any portion of the fee taken in July 2007.
8. The above police involvement documents are marked evidences in the II Addl Family Court FCOP:
3150. 2010 case and the civil OS11642007.
9. Respondent 4 has said in public that the petitioner has come from a bad family in the presence of vigilance and The Hindu.
10. The vigilance and The Hindu are part of a defamation case by a stranger faculty against the petitioner which is still pending, for over a decade in this high court, in a CRP to which the petitioner is not party to.
11. Recording in public in criminal, civil and family court cases that the petitioner has come from a bad family seems to be a pass time for meddlesome busybodies. As the above incidents show the collusion and involvement of police this writ may be considered as maintainable and may please be numbered and admitted.".
6. The main contention of the petitioner-in-person is that she and her daughters are being harassed by the police personnel at the behest of the fifth respondent, who is a police officer. She had submitted that their fundamental right of life and personal liberty, recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is being infringed by the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 and by the various activities of the respondents 4 to 7 and their henchmen.
7. She had also submitted that she has been put to severe hardship and mental agony due to the non co-operation of the fourth respondent in providing sufficient amounts of money for her maintenance and for the maintenance of her daughters. In such circumstances, this Court ought to take up the matter presented by her, as a writ petition and grant appropriate reliefs, as prayed for in the petition.
8. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner-in- person and on a perusal of the case papers placed before this Court, we are convinced that the matter is not maintainable as a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. It is noted that the respondents 1 to 3 are Presiding Officers of the Courts concerned, who had passed certain orders in matters pertaining to the petitioner-in-person. The respondents 4 to 7 are private parties, who cannot come under the definition of 'The State', under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
10. It is also noted that, in similar circumstances, the first Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 15.6.2013, in W.P.SR.No.41330 of 2013, rejecting the case of the petitioner-in-person, on maintainability.
11. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present matter, in W.P.SR.No.64992 of 2013, is liable to be rejected, as not maintainable. Hence, it stands rejected. However, it goes without saying that it may be open to the petitioner-in-person to work out her remedies, if any, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law. lan To:
1. The Judge CRP Court, High Court, Chennai 2. The Judge City Civil Court XIII Asst. Chennai 3. The PJ Family Court II Addl. Chennai