IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P.No.6479/2019 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
B.Manjunatha, S/o late Byappa, Aged about 38 years, Working as Police Constable at On OOD at District Police Office, KGF, Kolar District.
Residing at # 2, New Police Quarters, Behind Oorgaum Police Station, Oorugam, KGF Town, KGF Taluk, Kolar District – 563 120. … PETITIONER (By Sri J.D.Kashinath, Adv.) AND:
1. The Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Technical Education Building, Palace Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Kolar Town, Kolar – 563 101.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Kolar Town, Kolar – 563 101. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri C.Jagadish, Special Counsel) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned enquiry proceedings initiated through police vide notice dated 30.01.2009 issued by R-3 as per Annexure-A as illegal and without authority of law.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the notice dated 30.01.2019 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcements, Kolar.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice dated 30.01.2019 is issued by respondent no.3 who has no authority in law to do so. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents was unable to point out the source of authority under which the aforesaid notice has been issued by respondent no.3.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
5. The District Caste Verification Committee has validated the social status certificate to the petitioner on 18.12.2004. The said social status certificate has to be scrutinized, verified and approved as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘KUMARI MADHURI PATIL & ANOTHER VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT & OTHERS, AIR 1995 SC 94’.
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police – respondent no.3 has no authority in law to issue the impugned notice dated 30.01.2019 for initiation of an enquiry into the social status of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned notice dated 30.01.2019 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with.
With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KK