IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.9714 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Sri Prakash, s/o Gopal Aged about 47 years R/a No.221, Cottonpet Main Road, Near HDFC ATM Bashyam Road, Bengaluru-53. ... Petitioner (By Sri Suyog Herele. E for Sri Aruna Shyam M, Advocates) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Home Department, 2nd Floor Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City Infantry Road Bengaluru – 560001.
3. The Station of House Officer Cottonpet Police Station Bengaluru-560053.
4. The Circle Inspector Cottonpet Police Station Bengaluru-560053. ...Respondents (By Sri Vijaykumar A Patil, AGA for R1 to R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.3 to give police protection to the properties and to the petitioner and his staff/men/work men as requested in the complaint (produced at Annexure-A) as provided under the Karnataka Police Act.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Sri. Vijaykumar A Patil, learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to give police protection to the petitioner and his staff/men/workmen as requested in the complaint Annexure-A.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is running a lodge in the name and style “B.K. Lodge”. One Sri. Anantha Raman is the absolute owner of the property. The petitioner has taken the said lodge for lease vide agreement dated 25.01.2016 on deposit of security amount and is also paying the monthly rent regularly. Suddenly, the said Anantha Raman, during the tenure of lease agreement without issuing any termination notice or demanding the petitioner to vacate the premises, on 18.10.2016 at 2.30 p.m. came with some rowdy elements and threatened the petitioner that he will dispossess the petitioner from the premises and damaged the properties of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a complaint before the jurisdictional police and also approached the civil Court by filing O.S.No.7379/2016 seeking permanent injunction against Anantha Raman and his associates and men, which came to be decreed on 29.09.2018. Inspite of the said order, Anantha Raman and his men are interfering in his business and lawful and peaceful possession of the petitioner in the schedule properties. Hence, petitioner filed a representation/complaint to the third respondent seeking protection to him and his staff from Anantha Raman and his associate men as per Annexure-‘D’, which has not been considered. Therefore the present petition is filed for the relief sought for.
4. Sri. Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is the duty of the 3rd respondent-police to provide protection to the petitioner, his staff and workmen as per the request made as per Annexure-A and since the same has not been done, he has sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri.Vijaykumar A. Patil, on instructions from the third respondent who is present before the Court submits that the suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed and since the order passed by the trial Court is violated, the petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy available under the provisions of CPC. He would further contend that though the complaint was filed on 25.1.2019, subsequently the very petitioner approached the third respondent and gave a letter dated 28.1.2019 stating that the petitioner and one Sathish had talks and they have accordingly solved the dispute by arriving at a settlement and as such the complaint registered in NCR.No.24/2019 could be closed. The said fact of settlement is suppressed in the present writ petition. Therefore, he has sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a tenant under one Ananthram Reddy under lease agreement dated 25.1.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that during the tenure of the lease agreement, without issuing any termination notice or demanding the petitioner to vacate the premises, on 18.10.2016 the said Anantha Raman came with some rowdy elements and threatened the petitioner that he will dispossess him from the premises and damaged the properties of the petitioner and in that connection, he had filed the suit in O.S.No.7379/2016 for permanent injunction and obtained the decree on 29.9.2018. If the permanent injunction granted by the trial Court is violated by the defendant or any party to the suit, the remedy is always available to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of CPC. Instead, he has lodged the complaint on 25.1.2019 with the third respondent seeking police protection.
7. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the very petitioner gave a letter to the third respondent on 28.1.2019 stating that the matter is settled between the parties and the NCR.No.24/2019 registered on 25.1.2019 be closed. In the entire writ petition, the said fact is suppressed. Though a reference is made, the filing of the complaint, the request for closure of the complaint is not forthcoming. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. Therefore, he has not made out any statutory legally enforceable right to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as contemplated under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-