IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28210 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) Between:
Sri. Kamalesh Kumar @ Kamble, S/o. Late E. V. Gajendran, Aged about 36 years, Residing at Door No. 107, 3rd Cross, Lakshmimurthy Nagar, Ramamurthy Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 016. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Mohammad Niyaz.S, Adv.,) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Police Commissioner, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bangalore East Division, Ulsoor Main Road, Bangalore-560 008.
4. The Inspector of Police, Ramamurthy Nagara Police Station, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore-560 016. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 to 4 to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list and restrain the R-4 police from harassing the petitioner by demanding his presence in the police station and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Mohammad Niyaz.S, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to delete the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy List.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru East Division, Bengaluru and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the same by a speaking order.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in case such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, same shall be dealt with by the aforesaid authority in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case he submits a fresh representation to respondent No.3, the aforesaid authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of such representation.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-