IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.37483/2013 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI. R.S. SATHYANARAYANARAJ S/O R. VENKATARAMANARAJU AISHWARYA, SHIVADURGANAGARA 3RD CROSS, URAGADURU POST SHIMOGA – 577 201.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADV.,) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPORTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA – 577 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVA PRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNX-K DATED:09.04.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND PERMIT HIM TO OPENING THE LOCAL WEEKLY MAGAZINE FOR HIS LIVELIHOOD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘’B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Abhilash H.S learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.C.Vinay Swamy for petitioner and Sri.Shiva Prabhu S.Hiremath, learned AGA appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has sought for permission/license for opening a kannada daily/weekly newspaper contending inter-alia that he is a member of Sulebail Panchayath, Kadekail Village, Shimoga District and had also been working as a reporter in a local weekly and was its editor for the period 05.09.2012 to 04.09.2013 and as such he has desired to start his own local/weekly newspaper. As such, permission was sought for from second respondent who in turn sought for police verification and Tahsildar report which has been furnished as per Annexures-C and D enclosing Mahazar and report as per Annexures- E and F certifying that petitioner can be issued with the license/permission. It is further contended that petitioner has worked at Chandrodayapatrike (weekly) from 2010 onwards as reporter and also worked as a Chief editor from 05.09.2012 to 04.09.2013 vide certificate and appointment letter which is at Annexures-G and H and as such he posses requisite qualification to commence the newspaper.
3. The Superintendent of Police on verification of police report and village accountant’s report has not recommended claim or prayer of the petitioner has not been favourably considered or in other words second respondent has refused to consider the request of petitioner and has rejected the representation on 09.04.2012 vide Annexure-K.
4. It is the contention of Sri.Abhilash H.S, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that by impugned order, respondent has without even considering the material available before him has rejected the prayer of petitioner and it is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays for quashing of the same.
5. Learned AGA appearing for respondents would support the order of rejection.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, impugned order would clearly disclose that there were 20 criminal cases registered against petitioner for various offences punishable under Indian Penal Code including for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is no doubt true that in all these cases petitioner has been acquitted. However, jurisdictional police has declared petitioner has a rowdy sheeter and his name finds place in the rowdy sheeter list. As such, impugned order has been passed stating thereunder that in Thunganagar police station, petitioner name files in the rowdy list. As such, his claim for granting permission to commence weekly/daily newspaper has been disposed of for the present. This Court is of the considered view there is no error committed by second respondent in issuing the impugned endorsement to petitioner.
7. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate relief for his name being removed from rowdy sheet and in the event of such steps being taken and his name being removed from the rowdy sheeter list, petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh application before second respondent renewing his request and in the event of same being filed, second respondent would be at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law.
Subject to these observations, petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE RU