IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH W.P.H.C.NO. 67 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PAVAN NAGARZI S/O. KARAN NAGARZI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. SMT. TULASI WIFE OF SRI. PAVAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT C/O. ASHOK CHAND, R/AT 1ST CROSS, BEHIND K.E.B. OFFICE CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT HALASURU BENGALURU-560 008.
... PETITIONERS (BY DR. PRAJWAL K. ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ULSOOR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 008.
3. SRI. V. NEHRU REDDY @ V. NARAYANA SON OF LATE M. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 22 DODDAKATTAPPA ROAD ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. S. V. GIRIKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PRODUCE MASTER P.RAKESH CHAND NOW DETAINED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND FURTHER DIRECT THAT HE BE SET AT LIBERTY TO JOIN THE PETITIONERS FORTHWITH.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This petition is filed by the parents of the minor child seeking for an order to direct respondent No.3 to produce their child. It is their case that the child has been in the illegal detention of respondent No.3. That respondent No.3 has no blood relation with their child.
3. However, the material on record would indicate that the respondent No.3 has filed G&WC No.25002 of 2017 before the Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru under Sections 8 and 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking his appointment as the guardian of the minor child. Under these circumstances, we are view that the petitioner No.1 being the respondent therein is entitled to contest the matter therein.
4. We do not find it appropriate that a petition for habeas corpus should be entertained when the matter is ceased off by the trial Court. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed.
The learned Additional Advocate General is permitted to file his memo of appearance in four weeks.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB