BABA TEK SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                              [2012] 8 S.C.R. 724


    A                          BABA TEK SINGH
                                        v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                    (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 376 of 2012)

                            SEPTEMBER 17, 2012
    B
          [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Writ petition -
   Maintainability - Petitioner filing petition under Article 226 of
c Constitution alleging threat to his life and personal liberty -
   Withdrawing the petition feeling that the proceeding before
   High Court were not effective - Subsequently filing petition
   under Article 32 for the same remedies - Held: The petition
   under Article 32 is not maintainable - The action of the
0 petitioner in withdrawing the Petition pending before High Court
   simply to file the petition under Article 32 is not acceptable -
   The petitioner is wrong in his belief that proceedings before
  High Court are not effective or that he would not get full
  protection from High Court - High Courts have wide powers
E and possess as much authority as Supreme Court to protect
  and safeguard the constitutional rights - Since the matter
  relates to the right to life and personal liberty and since the
  a/legations prima facie do not appear to be unfounded and
  baseless, the petitioner is not left remediless - Request to the
  High Court to restore the petition under Article 226 to its
F original file and to proceed further in the matter in accordance
  with law.
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
        376 of 2012.
G           Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
            P.N. Misra, M.L. Saggar, Rajinder Mathur for the Petitioner.
            The following Order of the Court was delivered by


H                                    724
        BABA TEK SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA                     725

                          ORDER                                       A
      1. In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution,
the petitioner states that he apprehends threat to his life,
personal liberty and property at the hands of the respondents.
It is alleged that the respondents want to remove him from his
positions as Mohatmim of Gurudwara Gurusar Sahib, Patshahi B
Nauvin, Dhanaula, District Barnala (Punjab) and the President
 of the Baba Gandha Singh Trust (Registered) and to take over
 the control of the trust and its properties, including three schools
 at Barnala being run by the Trust. It is further alleged that the
 respondents hold very important positions in the Government C
 and wield great political influence. At their behest, the petitioner
  is being constantly hounded by the police and he has been
 taken in illegal custody on completely false charges on a
  number of occasions. The petitioner apprehends that he may
  even be eliminated at the instance of the respondents.              D
      2. There may be some substance in the allegations made
 in the writ petition but we do not wish to comment upon the
 merits of the petitioner's case, as we are not inclined to
 entertain the writ petition because we disapprove the manner
  in which the matter is brought to this Court.                       E
       3. The petitioner has instituted a number of proceedings
 (criminal and of the nature of contempt and writs) before the
 Punjab and Haryana High Court and in those cases he has also
 been getting orders in his favour. One such writ petition filed
                                                                          F
 by the writ petitioner before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
 was CWP No.21234/2011. The petitioner seems to have felt
 that the other side was delaying the matter and the case was
 not proceeding efficaciously before the High Court. He,
 therefore, filed a petition (CM No.8619 of 2012) for withdrawal
 of the writ petition. On July 18, 2012, the High Court allowed           G
  the application and permitted the petitioner to withdraw his writ
  petition before the High Court and to seek any other remedy
  available in law.
      4. Having, thus, withdrawn his writ petition before the High
                                                                          H
     726      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 8 S.C.R.

 A Court, the petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under
   Article 32 of the Constitution.
         5. We take eX;Ceplion to the manner in which this petition
   has been filed bef1Dre the Court. The petitioner is completely
   wrong in his belief that the proceeding before the High Court
B was not effective or that he would not have got full and complete
   protection from the High Court, if the High Court found the need
   to give him the protection. The petitioner must realise that the
   High Courts have wide powers and possess as much authority
  as this Court to protect and safeguard the constitutional rights
C of any person within their jurisdiction. We find the action of the
  petitioner in withdrawing the proceedings pending before the
  High Court simply to file this petition before this Court
  unacceptable and for this reason alone, we refuse to entertain
  this writ petition.
D       6. Had it been any ordinary civil case, we might have left
   the petitioner to face consequences of his action in withdrawing
   the proceedings before the High Court. But, since the matter
   relates to the right to life and personal liberty, and further since
   the allegations made in the writ petition prima facie do not
E appear to be unfounded and baseless, we cannot leave the
   petitioner completely remediless. We, therefore, request the
   High Court to restore the aforesaid CWP No.21234/2011 to
  its original file and to proceed further in the matter, in
  accordance with law. We hope and trust that the High Court will
F completely dispel any impression that the other side may delay
  the proceedings and take up the matter without any undue
  delay.
       7. We, once again, make it clear that we are not
  expressing any opinfon on the merits of the case and it is for
G the High Court to judge the matter independently and to pass
  appropriate orders in accordance with law.
       8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
   observations and directions.
rl K.K.T.                                Writ Petition disposed of.