IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 5964/2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN M RAJANNA S/O MUDDARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KASARAGHATTA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-562 123 (BY SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOME SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NELAMANGALA SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 123 ... PETITIONER 4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE-562 123 5. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DABASPET, NELAMANGLA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 111 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ROWDY SHEET AS CONTRARY TO ORDER 1059 OF KARNATAKA POLICE MANUAL, PART I AND IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to declare the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the rowdy sheet as contrary to Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, Part I and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that in case such a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that in case a representation is made to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VP