IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.15684-685 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SYED SHAHID AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SYED SHAHJAHAN NO.31, KARNATAKA CHICKEN STALL 4TH CROSS, CHINNAINAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 027.
2. JIBRAN QURESHI @ JIBRAN S/O IMROZ QURESHI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NO.51, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHINNAIANAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 027.
(By MR.TAJUDDIN, ADV.) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE JAYNAGAR SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE.
2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE/ STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADUGODI POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 030.
(By MR.VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL, AGA) - - -
… PETITIONERS … RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO CASE OF PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Tajuddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
a. by issue of writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the Annexure A issued by 2nd respondent police letter dated 6.6.2017 vide No.G5.PS.RTC/12/2017 and ‘A’ rowdy sheet opened in the name of 1st petitioner dated 24.11.2014 is to be quashed.
b. by issue of writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the Annexure-B ‘A’ rowdy sheet opened by 1st respondent police dated 9.12.2014 in name of 2nd petitioner as per Karnataka state police manual part 2 vide orders no 1059 at Adugodi P.S. is to be quased.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitions be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced a copy of the order dated 19.6.2006 passed in W.P.No.7182/2002 which is taken on record.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioners, 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 petitions are disposed of with a liberty that if the petitioners make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation afresh submitted by the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation by a speaking order and in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE RV