IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.40001 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. Padmabhushana Dr. M. C. Modi Public Trust, West of Chord Road, Dr. M. C. Modi Road, 9th Cross, 5th Main, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru – 560 086. Represented by its Sole Trustee, Subhash Chandra M Modi, S/o late Mahantappa, Aged about 62 years, 2. Subhash Chandra M Modi, S/o late Mahantappa, Aged about 62 years, R/at Dr.M.C.Modi Eye Hospital Complex, West of Chord Road, Mahalakshmipuram, 9th Cross, 5th Main, Bengaluru – 560 086.
… Petitioners (By Sri. Saravana S, Advocate for Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Sampangi Ramanagar, Bengaluru – 560 009.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, Bengaluru – 560 086.
5. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru – 560 086.
6. Station House Officer and Police Inspector Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 086.
… Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar A. Patil, AGA for R1 to R6; Sri. B.G. Nanjundaradhya and Sri. V. Vishwanath Shetty, Advocates for impleading applicant in IA 1/19.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner No.2 in discharging his duties as sole trustee of the petitioner No.1 Trust and also to the properties of petitioner No.1 Trust and etc., This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Saravana S, learned counsel for Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. Vijaykumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioners inter alia have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandums or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner No.2 in discharging his duties as Sole Trustee of the petitioner NO.1 Trust and also to the properties of petitioner No.1 Trust in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider the representations/ complaints dated 11.02.2017, 06.07.2017 and 25.08.2017 submitted by petitioner No.2 and to take appropriate action including but not limited to granting security to the petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1 trust and its properties vide Annexures Q, Y, Z and AA.
(iii) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
(iv) Grant costs of the proceedings.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with regard to the grievance, the petitioners have submitted a representation to respondent No.6 and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the grievance of the petitioners with regard to providing them police protection.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking police protection in the light of the order passed by the Additional Police Commissioner, Bengaluru within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and claim of the parties.
7. Impleading applicant shall be at liberty to place any material, which he desires to place before respondent No.4.
8. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-