IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.31207-208 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.G.SRIDHAR S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.30, DWARAKA NAGAR KENGERI-UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANNASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 098.
2. SRI.G.GIRIDHAR S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.317, DWARAKA NAGAR KENGERI-UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANNASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 098. (By MR.VEDACHALA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NEAR SREE CHARAN BANK SOUTH END ROAD, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 070.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 1ST FLOOR, 9TH MAIN ROAD … PETITIONERS T.R.NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 070.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD TALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU – 560 109.
(By MR.VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-4 REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY LIST OPENED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER NO.DATED: 06.04.2018 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.M.V.Vedachala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seek for a direction to the respondents to remove the name of the petitioners from the rowdy list opened in order dated 06.04.2018 which has not been disclosed to the petitioners on confidentiality grounds in endorsement letter No.RTI/38/TGPS/2018 dated 20.05.2018 at Annexure-AL.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions with liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation with regard to their grievance to the competent authority. Needless to state that if such a representation is made, the competent authority shall decide the same within four months from the date of receipt of such representation by a speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV