Judgment:
Motilal B. Naik, ACJ.
1. The petitioner, a retired I.P.S. Officer of the State of Andhra Pradesh, through this Writ Petition seeks a Mandamus calling for the records from respondents 1 to 4 regarding killing of four innocent persons on 6-6-1993 at Puttaparthi Sai Baba Ashram by declaring their action for not conducting a proper enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 4 to handover the same to the 5th respondent by directing the latter to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with law independently and bring the culprits under the charge of abetment, murder and other connected charges and thereby punish them in accordance with law.
2. According to the petitioner, on 6-6-1993, four innocent youths, who were devotees of Satya Sai Baba, were shot dead in Baba's Ashram by the police when those youths were unarmed and confined in the Ashram by the devotees. It is the complaint of the petitioner that though a crime was registered, the C.B.C.I.D. has not investigated the matter properly. It is also stated that when the said four persons were caught by the devotees and kept in a room in the Ashram, the police could have arrested them and conducted investigation to punish them in accordance with law, but unfortunately, the police killed the said hapless boys when they were totally unarmed.
3. It is noticed by us that when this matter fell for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court, the learned Judges by order dated 25-4-2002 observed that in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition purported to be a public interest litigation, in paragraph-3 thereof the deponent though stated that the police killed hapless boys when they were totally unarmed, he has not disclosed the source or the basis of the statement as to whether it is out of his personal knowledge or knowledge derived from some other source. The Division Bench directed the deponent to file an affidavit disclosing the source or the basis of which the above statement is made on oath. Thereafter, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner, who has narrated several factors, which include the allegations against the former Director General of Police of the State - Sri H.J. Dora and also disclosed some other factors.
4. It is noticed that the petitioner has made allegations against the former DGP of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the additional affidavit filed by him. When allegations are made against a person, such person should have been made as a party-respondent in the Writ Petition. After service of notice on him, he could have properly met the allegations made against him in the additional affidavit. For reasons unknown, no effort is made to implead the said person as respondent in this Writ Petition.
5. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, inter alia, bringing to the notice of the Court that on earlier occasion, a Writ Petition was filed by one B. Premanand in W.P.No. 14454 of 1993 with regard to the same incident and sought for a similar relief impleading the Director, CBI, Government of India-and others, which was dismissed on 15-3-1994. Against the said order, Writ Appeal No. 184 of 1995 was also filed which was disposed of. The matter was carried to the Apex Court. The Supreme Court of India by order dated 22-1-1996 while dismissing the SLP, observed thus:
'We have seen the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served in directing investigation into the incident happened on June 6, 1993 in Prashanthi Nilayam, Puttaparthi in which six persons were killed. The High Court has stated that the investigation was commendably done by the CBCID officers to whom it has been entrusted.'
6. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that pursuant to the Order passed by this Court, a report under Section 173(3) of Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who accepted the same by order dated 3-8-1996 and that the case was closed. It is further stated that since the report has already been accepted by the competent Criminal Court, which has become final and in the light of the fact that the matter on an earlier occasion went up to the Supreme Court, the relief sought in this Writ Petition cannot be granted.
7. We have heard Sri M. V. Raja Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
8. It is now contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the investigation done by the authorities is not proper and efforts are made to conceal the real fact.
9. It is difficult for us to accept the said contention at this point of time. We record, the petitioner herein was holding high positions being Additional Director General of Police of Government of Andhra Pradesh from 9-7-1993 to 30-1-1998 and later as Principal Secretary of Home Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh from 31-1-1998 to 3-5-2000. He retired from service in the year 2000. The incident said to have taken place in June, 1993. We are not inclined to appreciate the stand taken by the petitioner, which looks more as mud-slinging act on everybody. We are unable to know what prevented the petitioner to get the matter properly investigated when he was holding high position in the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the relevant point of time. We are not told by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner during the relevant time was not holding any responsible position in the Slate of Andhra Pradesh whose words could not have prevailed on the subordinate officers.
10. In a public interest litigation, the principle emerging is that the cause of those sufferers, who are ignorant and not able to get their grievances redressed, can be ventilated by a public sprited citizen on their behalf for redressal of the grievances. From a reading of the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, we have no hesitation to hold that this petitioner has something in his mind and looks as if he is trying to settle his personal scores, through this forum, against others, in the guise of public interest litigation. The incident has taken place in the year 1993 and we are in the year 2003. At this point of time, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to entrust the matter to the 5th respondent-CBI for further investigation, when the case was closed on the basis of a report under Section 173(3) of Cr.PC.
11. In the earlier round of litigation, the matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also accepted the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court that the investigation was done fairly and impartially. A report was also submitted under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC by the investigating authority before the competent Criminal Court, which accepted the same and closed the case. The said order of closing the case has also become final. When so much water has already flown, the present efforts are, in our view, unsustainable. For all these reasons, we dismiss this Writ Petition holding, no reasonable case is made out for issuance of a direction as prayed for.