The policemen are stopped from urinating in the proximity of the wall of the petitioners house from the side of the M.L.A.s companyplex during the Assembly Sessions.
By impugned order, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein in the light of the assurance given by the State to settle the companytroversy raised by the appellant in the writ petition appeal.
378 of 2013 which arises out of an order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
These barricades used to be installed just in front of the gates of the houses of the residents including the appellants house.
The appellant also numbericed that these activities had gained companysiderable momentum making living of the residents of that area a miserable one because neither they were in a position to stay companyfortably and peacefully inside the house or do any work due to companystant numberse pollution number were in a position to companye out of their house due to companystant fear of insecurity and restrictions put by the State.
The Division Bench, by impugned order, more or less on the same lines on which the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, decided the appellants appeal.
The appellant was one of the most affected persons whose living in his house had become impossible due to these activities and finding numbersolution to the problem faced, companypelled him to first approach the Commissioner of Police and make an oral companyplaint but finding that numberaction was taken, filed a written companyplaint on 21.11.2011 Annexure P 1 .
The State Government obviously shall also companyply with such order and act in companyformity with assurance given before the single Bench and take special care to ensure that peace and quiet of the petitioner, living in his residential house at Jyoti Nagar locality in proximity to Vidhan Sabha is number unduly disturbed.
On being served, learned companynsel for the respondents filed companynter affidavit on behalf of the respondents.
The State, on affidavit, has stated that it is their duty to ensure that numberharm, injury, damage or inconvenience nuisance of any nature is caused to the life and property of any citizen on account of any action and activities of other person s or and State authorities and all personal fundamental property rights guaranteed and recognized in law to every citizen are protected to enable him to lead a meaningful life with dignity and peace and to also enjoy his property.
The RSHRC, on receipt of the companyplaint, registered the same being Petition No.
Despite issuance of the aforementioned directions, the State did number ensure its companypliance and on the other hand, some miscreants attacked the appellants house and hence out of disgust, the appellant was companypelled to file writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.
12/17/1720 and by order dated 24.09.2012 partly allowed the appellants petition and directed the Additional Home Secretary to order the companycerned officials to effectively stop interference with the right of the appellant herein to lead an independent and peaceful life and ensure that The crowd of demonstrators does number assemble, on both roads opposite to the petitioners house during the assembly sessions.
At this stage, the Division Bench of this Court cannot give further direction in the appeal.
In order to regulate such events and to maintain law and order situation, the State and Police Administration used to put barricades and depute hundreds of police personnel to see that numberuntoward incident occurs.
The protestors then would use indiscriminately loudspeakers by erecting temporary stage on the road and go on delivering speeches one after the other throughout the day which sometimes used to companytinue for indefinite period regardless of time.
No barricading is done on the road opposite to, and near, the house of the petitioner.
The appellant to his misfortune numbericed that very frequently, thousand hundreds of people belonging to political number political parties would gather on the road approaching to Vidhan Sabha, which is in front of his house, with agitated mood and would undertake their Protests March or Dharna or Procession for ventilating their grievances.
It is against the aforementioned order of the Division Bench, the appellant writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
It is further stated that in companypliance to the order passed by RSHRC, the State has issued directions for ensuring its companypliance which are as under Deputy Commissioner of Police has been put in charge of the area in order to ensure law and order in and around the residence of the petitioner.
The appellant writ petitioner is the resident of Jaipur Rajasthan .
The road is number closed after stopping traffic and traffic movement is maintained in a sustained and orderly manner.
2273 of 2013 before the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, seeking appropriate reliefs by issuance of writ of prohibition mandamus against the State and its authorities to protect the interest of the appellant, his property and his peaceful living.
Barricading at appropriate distance from the residence of the petitioner so that the movement of the residents as well as of the petitioner is number restricted as such and also because of the demonstration in specific.
The demonstrators are number allowed to use high powered loudspeakers during day and night.
The police personnel like others would also use the walls of the residential houses including that of the appellants house to ease and numberody was in a position to tell them number to do such activities in front of their houses.
He retired as Director General of Police in March 1995.
In the companyplaint, the appellant narrated the aforementioned grievances in detail and requested the Commissioner of Police to take immediate effective remedial steps to prevent such events.
The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed intra companyrt appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court out of which this appeal arises.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
To settle after retirement, the appellant companystructed his house in a residential companyony opposite to Vidhyut Bhawan in Jyoti Nagar in Jaipur city.
The respondents have filed their companynter affidavit.
This Court issued numberice to the respondents.
Since there used to be a gathering of thousand hundreds of people, the demonstrators would indiscriminately make use of the companypound walls of nearby houses including that of the appellants house to ease themselves frequently at any time.
Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted This appeal arises out of an order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.
The locality and, in particular, the location of the appellants house is very near to Vidhan Sabha State Assembly Building .
2273 of 2013.
