IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.30715 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Smt. Manjula W/o. Munesh R.
Aged about 31 years R/o. No.110, Ganangooru Gram K.Shetti Halli Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk T.M.Hosur Mandya - 571 807. … Petitioner (By Sri Hanumanthappa B.Haravi Gowdar, Adv.) AND:
1. The Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka Office of Secretariat Vidhana soudha Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Secretary Home Affairs Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Director General of Police And Inspector General of Police Government of Karnataka Nrupatunga Road Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. The Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City Infantry Road Bengaluru - 560 001.
5. The Superintendent of Police Mandya District Mandya - 571 807.
6. The Superintendent of Police Mysuru City Mysuru - 570 001.
7. The Superintendent of Police Ramanagar District Ramanagar – 571 511.
8. The Superintendent of Police Chitradurga District Chitradurga - 577 501.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Hassan District Hassan - 573 201.
10. The Superintendent of Police, Chamaraj Nagar District Chamaraj Nagar - 571 313.
… Respondents (By Sri. B. Balakrishna, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.10 not to visit the petitioner’s residence without any prior permission by the respondent No.5 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. B. Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 10th respondent not to visit the petitioner’s residence without any prior permission by the 5th respondent.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to hold an independent enquiry against the respondent Nos.4 to 10.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to her grievance, the petitioner be granted liberty to file representation to respondent No.5, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Mandya District and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in case such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority that in case petitioner submits a representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation.
6. 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 PYR