IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.62579/2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI B S PRAKASH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.81/23, 6TH TEMPLE ROAD SREENIVASA RAJU ROAD, 16TH CROSS, MALEESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003 (BY SRI P DHANANJAYA, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SESHADRIPURAM DIVISION (SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION, IST FLOOR), SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560003 5. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560003 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A M SURESH REDDY, AGA.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; DURECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 23.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 03.11.2014 impugned at Annexure-M to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.11.2016.
2. The petitioner contends that he is a law abiding citizen and hails from a middle class family. He further contends that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and is not involved in any criminal activities. In that light, it is contended that the action of the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register is not justified and accordingly the petitioner claims that a direction is necessary to be issued to the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register. In that regard, the petitioner has also made a representation dated 23.11.2016 as at Annexure-Q. Since the same has not received consideration at the hands of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. They have referred to the nature of the activities of the petitioner and in that light, they have contended that apart from the cases registered against the petitioner, the very conduct of the petitioner would answer the requirement as contained in the Order No.1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual. It is therefore contended that in that circumstance, the authorities having secured all the materials and having assessed the same were of the opinion that a surveillance is required to be maintained in respect of the repeated criminal activities and have accordingly included the name of the petitioner in the Rowdy Register. It is further pointed out that despite the said position, though the petitioner was required for repeated monitoring, the petitioner had absconded which has also been recorded as per the document enclosed to the objection statement.
4. Thus having taken note of the rival contentions, what cannot be in dispute is that the criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner. Thus keeping in view the repeated criminal activities of the petitioner, his name had been included in the rowdy register. The fact that two more cases are pending against the petitioner and the details to which reference is made in the objection statement is not in dispute.
5. If that be the position, at this juncture, quashing the order at Annexure-M would not arise. That apart, since at present criminal cases are pending consideration, the very representation which has been pending from 23.11.2016 at this stage would not arise. However, it is made clear that if the pending criminal cases are disposed of and if the petitioner is acquitted in the said proceedings and further if the petitioner does not involve himself in repeated criminal activities in future, the petitioner at that stage may file an appropriate representation to respondent No.3 seeking details to delete his name from the rowdy register. At that point in time, respondent No.3 shall secure all the materials relating to the petitioner from respondents No. 4 and 5 or any other Police Station, if the need arises at that stage and on examining the same, appropriate orders be passed on the representation to be filed by the petitioner.
With the said liberty and directions, the petition stands disposed of Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms