IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Sri. Nishanth Narasimha Bhandary, S/o. Sri. Narasimha Krishna Bhandary, Aged about 39 years, Flat No.S-20, Man Jardin of Sarjapura Main Road, Near Wipro Doddakannalli, Doddakannalli, Camelaram, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru.
Represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri.Vinay.L.Shetty, Son of late K.Lakshman Shetty, Aged about 41 years, Resident of Marigudi Main Road, Near Marigudi Temple, Urva, Mangaluru Taluk-575 001. (By Sri.M.Arun Shyam, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, 2nd Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Petitioner 2. The Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru City, Mangaluru, D.K.District-575 001.
3. The Station House Officer, Mulki Police, Mulki, Mangaluru-575 002. (By Sri.Vijayakumar.A.Patil, AGA) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated:24.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to approach Revenue Authority and to settle the matter within a period of one month which is produced at Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of both parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the endorsement dated 24.12.2018 issued by respondent No.3, by which the petitioner has been asked to approach the revenue authority and settle the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question and the petitioner, after obtaining necessary sanction from the authority, is raising construction on his property. However, neighbours of the petitioner tried to prevent him from raising construction on his property. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint to the concerned authority. However, the police authority by endorsement dated 24.12.2018, directed the petitioner to approach the civil Court.
4. After arguing the matter to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievance against the persons, who are trying to obstruct him from raising construction on his property and concerned police authority be directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case he makes a complaint.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate fairly submits that in case the petitioner makes a complaint in accordance with law, the same shall be taken.
6. In view of the submissions made by both sides and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court against the persons, who are trying to obstruct him from raising construction on the property in question.
It is needless to state that in case the petitioner files an application seeking police protection, the aforesaid application shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the concerned police authority in the light of Section 46 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
dn/-
Sd/- JUDGE