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.1906 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
MR. P. S. AYUB AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O MR. SYED BASHA, R/A T-3, MARIAMMA APARTMENTS, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT (LAW & ORDER) VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001 … PETITIONER 3. SRI. SEEMANTH KUMAR SINGH ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (EAST) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1 INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4. SRI. S. GIRISH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NORTH EAST DIVISION KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 092 5. SRI. NAGATHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SAMPIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD HEGDE NAGAR BENGALURU-560 077 6. H. HARIYAPPA INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTHANUR POLICE STATION HENNUR BENGALURU MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 077 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3, R4, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-H DATED 13.11.2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO FABRICATE FALSE CASES AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AFFAIRS OF M/S.ATTICA GOLD PVT. LTD., BY MISUSING INVESTIGATION POWERS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-H dated 13.11.2017.
2. 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 fresh representation to the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that in case such a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
4. 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 fresh 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.
5. Till the representation to be filed by the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, ad-interim order dated 01.10.2018 granted by a bench of this Court, shall continue.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-