IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.11221-11222 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O. SRI CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PETTY BUSINESS.
2. SMT V LAVANYA, W/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE.
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 BOTH ARE R/AT OPPOSITE TO FORMER ZP MEMBER AMARAVATHI KRISHNAPPA’S HOUSE, 6TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-561207.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RAJESHWARA.P.N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE HAVING AT MARIMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101.
4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, OFFICE HAVING AT MARIMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT-562101.
5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGEPALLI CIRCLE, OFFICE ADDRESS:
BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION PREMISES, BAGEPALLI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561207 6. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION, BESIDE TALUK OFFICE, DVG MAIN ROAD, BAGEPALLI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561207.
7. THE CHAIRMAN / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT POLICE COMPLAINT AUTHORITY, CHIKKABALLPUR DISTRICT, HAVING OFFICE AT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, CHINTAMANI-SHIDLAGATTA ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.
8. MR.PRABHUSHAKARA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, OFFICE ADDRESS:
BEHIND DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE CHINTAMANI - SHIDLAGATTA ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
9. SRI.GOVINDARAJU, WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR AT DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TUMKUR TOWN AND DISTRICT-572101.
10. SRI.SANDEEP, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOW WORKING AT BATLAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR-563125.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.BALAKRISHNA, AGA FOR R1-R7;
R8 TO 10 ARE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 AND 7 TO INITIATE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AS AGAINST THE R-8 TO 10 AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THEIR REPRESENTATION DTD 25.10.2018 VIDE ANNX-S AND 29.10.2018 VIDE ANNX-T AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Rajeshwara P.N., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 7.
2. These petitions are admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia have prayed for the following reliefs:
“‘(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 and 7 to initiate departmental enquiry as against the respondents No.8 to 10 as requested by the petitioners in their representation dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure-S) and 26.10.2018 (Annexure-T).
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not prevent the petitioners from carrying on their chicken meat business in the schedule property.”
4. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that being aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.5 to 8, the petitioner No.1 approached respondent No.7. Yet, respondent No.7 did not take any action against respondent Nos.8 to 10, who have illegally demolished the property belonging to the petitioners, despite an order of injunction.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken on the aforesaid complaint.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners cannot carry on the business in the schedule property as the structure raised by them has been demolished by respondent Nos.8 to 10 and therefore, the petitioners be granted liberty to move appropriate application in the original suit, which has been filed by them.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.7 to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner No.1 against respondent Nos.8 to 10 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
8. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in the original suit, which has been initiated by them seeking relief of injunction.
9. In case, such an application is filed by the petitioners, the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid application.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-