P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Since this doesn't appear to be an appropriate case to enter into the question, whether a notice issued by the Inspector of Police, when questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and ordered by the Court, shall give rise to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court, we leave the question open, but observe that we are entertaining the appeal only because we have found that the notice is clearly outside of any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or any other law relatable to a criminal proceeding. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent limits the Court's power of appeal to civil proceedings only. A notice which has the effect of affecting right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and which is outside of the procedure established by law since affects a civil right, may, when questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution, be termed as of civil nature. We do not, however, make any final pronouncement on it.
2. The petitioner-appellant, under the notice dated 11-5-1992, was directed to appear before the Inspector of Police, Chandrayangutta Police Station, on every Sunday between 12-00 noon and 6-00 p.m. under the threat, 'otherwise action will be taken against you'. When enquired, how such notice has been issued by the Inspector of Police, Chandrayangutta Police Station. Hyderabad to the petitioner-appellant and is there any law which empowers the Inspector of Police to issue such a notice, we are informed about the laws in this behalf, however, which completely rule out any such notice by a Police Officer. Notice in writing requiring the attendance before any Police Officer is contemplated under S. 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which limits this power, however, to be exercised by the Officer making investigation of a case as contemplated under the various provisions in Chapter XII of the Code and intended for informations which such person may possess in respect of any notice under investigation. Since the concerned Police Station is within the limits of the City of Hyderabad and the powers of the Police Officer in the city are spelled out in the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, the only provisions in this behalf in S. 29, which are traceable, do not appear to authorise issuance of such notice to any person. The proceedings aforementioned, thus, are without any authority of law and without jurisdiction. Learned single Judge, however, in the impugned judgment has said as follows :
'The learned Government Pleader stated that the petitioner was involved in many criminal cases alone with others and they are actually moving with deadly weapons. When deadly weapons are being carried on by the petitioner and the investigating agency requires his presence, the respondents are perfectly justified in issuing the notice, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was only asked to report before the second respondent-Inspector of Police, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, on every Sunday. Any restrictions that have been placed by the Police with regard to dealing of communal elements involved in the above instances can be allowed to be continued. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot entertain such a petition. In the circumstances, the impugned order is perfectly justified and cannot be interfered with at this stage.'
3. Learned single Judge has, however, taken notice of the fact that when presence is required by the investigating agency and the person concerned is involved in criminal case along with others, in the above order, and thus noted justification of the notice by the Police Officer. We have, however, not found any trace in any of the laws brought to our notice that a Police Officer can decide on his own, unless the presence is determined by the competent authority and in a proper proceeding, to summon any person for attendance at the Police Station except for the above purpose. The impugned judgment for the said reason is fit to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.
4. The appeal is allowed. Since the impugned judgment has been set aside, the writ petition is allowed and the notice dated 11-5-1992 bearing No. I/ICG/OW/92 from the Office of the Inspector of Police, Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad is quashed. The respondents are restrained from interfering with the liberty of the petitioner save in accordance with law. No further direction, however, is required, as, we are informed, the notice has not been given effect to at all.
5. Appeal allowed.