IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA W.P.Nos.26148/2017 & 38551-38567/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SRI JAGADISH PROPRIETOR JOGMAYA JEWELLERS AND BANKERS NO.469, JIGANI MAIN BUS STOP NEAR PANCHAYATHI BHAVAN JAGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 102 2. SRI RAMLAL BHURARAM CHOUDHARY PROPRIETOR MATHAJI JEWELLERS YARANDALHALLI VILLAGE OPP. R K TOWNSHIP ROAD HENNAGARA POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562016 3. SMT. LEELA DEVI PROPRIETOR VARALAKSHMI BANKERS MAIN ROAD, BUS STAND JIGANI CIRCLE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 105 4. SRI KANARAM PROPRIETOR RAJALAKSHMI BANKERS AND JEWELLERS NO.224, MAIN ROAD (CIRCLE) JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 106 5. SRI KAILASH SEERVI PROPRIETOR BALAJI BANKERS & JEWELLERS NO.2, SIDDHAPPA BUILDING OPP. SNS HIGH SCHOOL JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 106 6. SRI KHUMARAM PROPRIETOR NAVDURGA JEWELLERS AND TELECOM JANATHA COLONY YARANDA HALLI MAIN ROAD HENNAGARA POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 016 7. SRI SUMAN KUMAR JAIN PROPRIETOR ARIHANT BANKERS JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 102 8. SRI NIRMAL KUMAR PROPRIETOR BHERUNATH BANKERS SANTHE BEEDI MAIN ROAD JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 102 9. SRI BHAWAR LAL PROPRIETOR RAJSHREE JEWELLERS JIGANI BUS STOP JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 102 10. SRI BHAWAR LAL SENCHA PROPRIETOR RAM JEWELLERS AND BANKERS NO.546/111 SANTHE BEEDI MARKET NEAR POLICE STATION JIGANI MAIN RAOD JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 102 11. SRI GUDARAM PROPRIETOR LAXMI JEWELLERS SANTHE BEEDI JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 106 12. SRI RAKESH PROPRIETOR SRI GANAPATH JEWELLERS AND BANKERS OPP. GOVT HOSPITAL HARAGADDE VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 105 13. SRI KALYAN SINGH PROPRIETOR ANISHA JEWELLERS OPP. PATALAMMA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, SANTHE BEEDI JIGANI POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 105 14. SRI NATHURAM RATHORE PROPRIETOR RAMDEV JEWELLERS AND BANKERS NO.3, REDDY COMPLEX ANEKAL ROAD MADAPATNA, HARAGADDE POST BANGALORE-560 106 15. SRI DAWARLAL P PROPRIETOR DEVI JEWELLERS NO.189/3, JANATHA COLONY YARANDAHALLI HENNAGAR POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 106 16. SMT. LEELA DEVI PROPRIETOR KAVERI JEWELLERS HARGADDE MAIN ROAD NEAR BUS STOP JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 105 17. SRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY PROPRIETOR MATHAJI JEWELLERS NO.130, HARGADDE VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 106 18. SRI H KHETARAM PROPRIETOR RAMDEV BANKERS KLADB CIRCLE YARANDAHALLI MAIN ROAD 4TH PHASE BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560 099 (BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDI VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GIRI NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560085 (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA.) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONERS AND TO VIOLATE THEIR PERSONAL LIBERTY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO WORK WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF LAW AND NOT TO HARASS THE PETITIONERS BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF LAW.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 3 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners and to violate their personal liberty. The petitioners also seek that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to carryout their duties within the frame work of law and not to harass the petitioners.
3. The petitioners claim to be carrying on the business of Pawn Brokers having obtained the appropriate licence in that regard. The contention of the petitioners is that though they have been carrying on the business in accordance with law, the police authorities, more particularly the jurisdictional police have been interfering with the business of the petitioners in the guise that certain articles are to be recovered from the shop of the petitioners. In that view, the petitioners contend that even if the crime as registered in Cr.No.125/2017 with the Girinagar Police is kept in view, taking into consideration the value of the articles as mentioned therein, the nature of the action as taken by the respondents is not justified.
4. In the light of the contention that is put forth by the petitioners, a mandamus in the nature as sought in the petitions would not arise for consideration at this point in time. This is for the reason that the petitioners if are aggrieved by the action of any of the subordinate police officers or the jurisdictional police, an appropriate representation is required to be made to respondent No.2 putting forth their grievances, if any. On such representation being filed, respondent No.2 shall take note of the same, keep in view the Circular that has been issued by the respondents themselves with regard to the manner in which the police authorities are to proceed in the matters of the present nature and in that light, respondent No.2 may examine the grievance of the petitioners. While so examining the representation, if respondent No.2 finds that any of the police officers have not acted in accordance with law or have taken action beyond their powers, respondent No.2 may take appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. In that light, the instant petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representation with respondent No.2 putting forth their grievance. Respondent No.2 shall receive such representation, verify the details and consider the representation in the manner as indicated above. In any event, the nature of the decision taken by respondent No.2 shall be intimated to the petitioners within two months from the date on which the representation is made.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms