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 Nos.33810-33814/2015(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. ALL INDIA MAJLIS-E-ITTEHADUL MUSLIMEEN, A RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT,1951 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.88/1-1, 2ND FLOOR, COLES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BENGALURU DISTRICT PRESIDENT MR. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, 2. MR. ASADUDIN OWAISI, S/O LATE SULTAN SALAHUDDIN OWAISI, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, LOK SABHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT H NO.3-6-149 HYDERGUDA, HYDERABAD-500 029.
3. MR. AKBARDUDDIN OWAISI, S/O LATE SULTAN SALAHUDDIN OWAISI, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, TELENGANA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT H NO.8-2-686/B/A ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD-500 034.
4. MR. AHMED BIN ABDULLAH BALALA S/O ABDULLAH BIN AHMED BALALA MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, TELENGANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.22-5-484 PANJESHA, CHARMINAR, HYDERABAD-500 002.
5. MR. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM S/O P. MOHAMMED ZACKRIA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.309, 4TH A CROSS HRBR LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 043.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHRAVANTH ARYA PANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANU P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA, KSCMF BUILIDNG, ANNEX, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU EAST, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008.
5. INSPECTOR OF POLICE/STATION HOUSE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION PULAKESHINAGAR SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560 005.
6. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, THROUGH THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE, ENGINEER-VASANTHNAGAR SUB DIVISION QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP FOR R1 & R3 TO R5;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R2; SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT-
5. (ANNEXURE-N) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Endorsement dated 7.8.2015 issued by Respondent No.5, refusing to hold public meeting on 11.8.2015 at Shivajingar, Bengaluru.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that Respondent NO.2 – State Election Commission, Karnataka is the sole authority responsible for granting permission to hold public meetings for the elections to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagaraplaike scheduled to be held on 22.8.2015 and for other local body elections.
c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to exercise its constitutional obligation and to consequently direct the police authorities to accord permission to the petitioners to hold public rallies/meetings on a day to day basis as and when requested by the petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that 1st petitioner is a recognized political party and petitioners were given permission to hold a public meeting on 8.2.2015, which was arbitrarily withdrawn. The same was the subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.4196-98/2015 before this Court. The said writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 5.2.2015 with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the competent authority for conducting the meeting on 20.2.2015 or 21.2.2015 at Chota Maidan, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. It is also stated in the said order that if such an application is filed, the authority concerned has to consider the same expeditiously.
Thereafter, a fresh application was submitted on 5.2.2015 to hold meeting on 21.2.2015. At the penultimate moment, permission was granted for holding the meeting, after having banned the entry of petitioner No.2, who was to be principal participant for the meeting to be held on 21.2.2015.
3. It is further case of the petitioners that they once again submitted an application seeking permission to hold meeting/assembly on 25.4.2015. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 also filed W.P. No.13813/2015 inter alia seeking quashing of the earlier prohibitory order. The petitioners were shocked when once again permission was issued for holding the meeting without the presence of petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the elections of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) were announced by the Respondent NO.2 on 3.8.2015. In view of the announcement of election, petitioner No.1 sought permission to hold a public meeting/rally at Chota Maidan, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. Petitioners also submitted a list of star campaigners i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent NO.2 - Returning Officer permitted to conduct meeting on 11.8.2015 from 12 noon to 10 p.m. and Respondent No.6 – BBMP accorded permission for usage of the ground. However to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, Respondent No.5 by an Endorsement dated 7.8.2015 denied the application/request for holding meeting on 11.8.2015. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed for the reliefs sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. Sri Shravanth Arya Pandra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Respondent No.5 ought to have issued the permission as sought for by the petitioners to hold public meeting on 11.8.2015. The same was rejected without there being any proper reason. He further contended that when the Respondent No.2 - State Election Commission and Respondent NO.6 – BBMP has given permission, the Respondent No.5 ought not to have denied such permission to hold meeting on 11.8.2015 at Chota Maidan (BBMP ground), Shivajingar. Therefore he sought to allow these writ petitions.
6. Learned Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned Endorsement issued by the 5th respondent and contended that the application was filed by the petitioners on 6.8.2015 as per Annexure-J for permission to hold the public meeting on 11.8.2015 at Chota Maidan (BBMP ground), Shivajinagar and the authorities considering the pros and cons, has rightly rejected the same on the ground that there were serious threats to the communal harmony. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners sought permission from Respondent No.5 as per Annexure-J dated 6.8.2015 to hold public meeting on 11.8.2015 at Chota Maidan (BBMP ground), Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. By the impugned Endorsement dated 7.8.2015, the Respondent No.5 rejected for grant of permission. In the impugned Endorsement, Respondent No.5 has recorded a finding that 11.8.2015 is a regular working day and the Chota Maidan (BBMP ground) is surrounded by a mosque, temple, church, BMTC bus-stand etc., and if the public meeting is held, it may lead to encouraging problems relating to communal harmony. Further, Vidhana Soudha and High Court are also nearer to Chota Maidan (BBMP ground) and if the meeting is held, it may affect functioning of the said offices causing inconvenience to the public. Therefore, in order to protect the public peace and tranquility, permission sought for has been rejected.
8. Admittedly, the impugned order is not stayed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the date of public meeting i.e., 11.8.2015 is already over and the present Writ Petitions have become infructuous and may be dismissed as having become infructous.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-