IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.9100/2015 (GM – POLICE) BETWEEN:
GANGADHARA P.S., S/O SANNA DAYMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O PATTANAYAKANAHALLI GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND:
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 101 2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIRA RURAL CIRCLE, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION SIRA TALUK , TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 137 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DROP & DELETE THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE ROWDY SHEET LIST OF PATTNAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, VIDE INFORMATION DATED 23.09.2012 WHICH HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to drop or delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet list of Pattanayakanahalli police station, Sira Taluk, Tumkuru District vide information dated 23.09.2012 which has been came to the knowledge of the petitioner as per Annexures-A and B.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the Ex-president of Pattanayakanahalli Gram Panchayat and is an agriculturist by occupation and he is a social activist also. He is having good reputation in the society and has been working for the welfare of people of Pattanayakanahalli. It is further contended that in the month of January 2013, it has came to the knowledge that the rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioner on 23.09.2012. Therefore, he has sought information under the RTI Act in respect of the cases pending against him. Accordingly, the third respondent issued a letter dated 18.01.2013 stating that from 2002 up to 21.01.2013 there were no cases registered or any allegations of acquittal against the petitioner at Pattanayakanahalli police station.
3. It is his further case that on 17.12.2013, the proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C in Crime No.140/2013 for security purposes before the Pattanayakanahalli police station before the Taluk Executive Magistrate in MAG Cr.119/2013-14. The same was closed on 20.12.2013. It is also stated that there are two petitions against the petitioner in petition No.1/2015 dated 03.01.2015 and petition No.5/2015 dated 30.11.2014, the impugned endorsement issued that the documents in respect of opening rowdy sheet is confidential. Therefore, there is no provision to give information. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. Sri.Vasanth V. Fernandes, learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions from the Sub-inspector Sri.Shivakumar, submits that there are cases against the petitioner prior to and subsequent to 23.09.2012. Therefore, the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner and contended that in view of the Order 1059 of Police Manual, persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace; persons bound over under sections 106 and 107, Criminal Procedure Code; persons who have been convicted under section 31(1)(u) or twice in two consecutive years under Clauses (m), (o) or (p) of Sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963 or any person who, in the opinion of the Station House Officer, is desirable to be considered as a 'Rowdy' can be opened as rowdy sheet. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not involved in any of the offences as contemplated under the provisions of Order 1059 of the Police Manual as on the date of the rowdy sheet information made. On 23.09.2012, there were no cases pending, as could be seen from the endorsement issued by the respondents as per Annexure-A. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Sri.Vasanth V. Fernandes, the learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned information and contended that there were cases against the petitioner. The petitioner is habitually committing the offences attracts the provisions of the Order 1059 of Police Manual. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, according to the petitioner, there were no cases pending. He is a social activist and Ex-president of Pattanayakanahalli Gram Panchayat. But in Annnexure-B in Crime No.140/2013, there is a reference that the Jurisdictional Authorities have opened the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. When he approached the Authorities for the detailed information, the Authorities issued endorsement that there are no cases pending against him and not acquitted or convicted.
9. If that is so, it is for the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for deletion of rowdy sheet if any made on 23.09.2012 by way of representation. If such representation is made before the Authorities, the respondent No.1 shall consider the representation taking into consideration the entire material on record and shall pass order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.