IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53043 OF 2018(GM-POLICE) Between:
Sri.Roshan Saldanah, S/o Sri. Thomson Saldanah, Aged about 36 years, R/o Bolugude House, Near Bajal Church, Bajal Post, Kankanady, Mangaluru – 575 005.
(By Sri.Aruna Shyam, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, 2nd Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru City, Mangaluru, D.K.District – 575 001.
3. The Station House Officer, Barke Police, Mangaluru – 575 001.
… Petitioner 4. The Station House Officer, Kanakanady Town Police, Mangaluru – 575 001.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Mangaluru – 575 001.
…Respondents (By Sri.B.Balakrishna, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet forthwith and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Aruna Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy sheet forthwith.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with regard to his grievance before the competent authority and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that if such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty that if the petitioner makes a representation to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the aforesaid authority shall consider and decide the same by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation.
7. In the meanwhile, action if any, against the petitioner, shall be taken in accordance with law.
8. 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/-