IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.36436/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
B. ESWARA CHARI, S/O LATE BHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF VEERABHADRASWAMY JEWELLERY WORKS, BAMBUBAZAR ROAD, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DIST:577 598. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.C. PARAMESHWARAIAH, ADV. FOR SRI. K.B. LOKANATH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KOTE POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. SURESH REDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 08.08.2017 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE R-4 FOR HIS ILLEGAL ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE PRODUCED AT ANNX-B, C & D RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 08.08.2017 and initiate action against the respondent No.4.
3. The petitioner claims to be the Proprietor of Veerabhadraswamy Jewellary Works, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on the business in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on 08.08.2017, the respondent No.4 without any reason whatsoever has sought to interfere with the business of the petitioner by visiting the shop of the petitioner. It is in that view, contending such action is not justified, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation dated 08.08.2017 to respondents No.1 to 3 seeking action against the respondent No.4. Since, no action is taken, the petitioner is before this Court and the petitioner also contends that the respondents are required to follow the circular dated 19.02.2008.
4. Having taken note of the averments as contained in the petition and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, what also cannot be lost sight is that, as contended by the learned Government Advocate, the jurisdictional Police are required to take appropriate steps, if in the course of investigation they are to visit any place wherein, there is reason to suspect that stolen articles are kept. However, in the instant case, at this stage, this Court cannot come to a conclusion as to the validity of the complaint as made by the petitioner or the action that was taken by the respondent No.4. That aspect of the matter is required to be taken note by the respondent No.3 and thereafter arrive at a conclusion in accordance with law.
5. To enable the same, the petitioner is permitted to submit one more copy of the representation to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 shall thereupon secure all particulars from the respondent No.4, examine the same and take a decision in accordance with law. The consideration by the respondent No.3 shall be made as expeditiously as possible but, not later than two months from the date on which the representation is submitted and the decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST