IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.23914 OF 2013 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI.S.NARAYANASWAMY SON OF SRIRAMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS EDITOR, NIRNAYA KANNADA WEEKLY RTI ACTIVIST RESIDING AT NO.45/1, MASTHI LAYOUT NEAR SHANKAR VIDHYALAYA KOLAR – 563 101.
(BY MR.SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR M/S.M.T.NANNAIAH ASETS.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. RAMNIVAS SAPET IPS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE … PETITIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.
5. POLICE INSPECTOR DISTRICT INTELLIGENCE BRANCH KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.
7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR – 563 108.
(BY MR.VIJAYKUMAR.A.PATIL AGA ) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED: 15.02.2013, 21.02.2013, 28.02.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z6, 7 AND 8 RESPECTIVELY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECUTIRY BY DISCHARGING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY FUNCTIONS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OF INDIA AND THE STATUTUTES ENACTED THERE UNDER SO AS TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE / DO HIS PROFESSION AS GURANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Shankarappa, learned counsel for M/s M.T.Nannaiah Assts., for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijaykumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 7.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 15.02.0213, 21.02.2013, 28.02.2013 as per Annexure Z6, 7 and 8 respectively to provide additional security by discharging their constitutional and statutory functions as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the statutes enacted there under so as to enable the petitioner to continue/ do his profession as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
(b) To issue a writ in the name of mandamus by directing the 5th respondent to withdraw the observation made by the 5th respondent that the petitioner at present do not have definite apprehension of threat as per vide endorsement dated 29.05.2012 Annexure-Z12 and conduct the CBI enquiry about the false information against the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
(c) Issue a writ in the name of the mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondent No.4 to issue appropriate directions to the jurisdictional police to provide escort protection as per the official memorandum dated 14.08.2011 extended by the predecessor in office of the 4th respondent.
(d) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the he be granted with a liberty to make a fresh representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that in case a representation is made to the competent authority, the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS