IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55885 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
M MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.138/1A, OFFICERS MODEL COLONY, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 057.
(BY MR.BIPIN HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RMC YARD, YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE-571 022.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RMC YARD, YESHWANTHPURA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-571 022.
5. CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR BAGALGUNTE, MEI LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073.
… PETITIONER 6. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAGALGUNTE, MEI LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560 073.
(BY MR.VIJAYKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY LIST.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation to the competent authority, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation afresh submitted by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation by a speaking order and in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS