IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.42837/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI T G NARASIMHAMURTHY AGE 39 YEARS S/O. T V GANGARAJU, NO.119, KARAGADA COLONY, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B R SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD:28.12.2017 AND 23.1.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND G RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri.B.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 28.12.2017 and 23.01.2018 vide Annexures- F and G respectively.
(b) Consequently, pass an order directing respondent No.2 to appoint a body guard to the petitioner as requested by him for his personal security.
(c) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, including the cost, in the ends of justice and equity.”
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 28.12.2017 submitted by the petitioner contained in Annexure-F.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken on the representation which has been submitted by the petitioner.
6. In view of the submission made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT-HR