IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.36768/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
UMABAI W/O R.SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU – 560 034 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOME SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 001 3. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NELAMANGALA SUB – DIVISION OPP: TUMKUR ROAD NELAMANGALA BENGALURU – 562 123 4. INSPECTOR MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 562 162 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 – R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO.265/2016 DATED 06.07.2017 AT ANNEXURE – C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to give effect to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.No.265/2016 dated 06.07.2017 as at Annexure-C to the petition.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.265/2016. In the said suit, the Court below is stated to have passed an order dated 04.08.2016 to the benefit of the petitioner herein. Since according to the petitioner, the said order was not implemented, an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed before the Court below. The Court below, through the order dated 06.07.2017 has directed the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District to enforce the order dated 04.08.2016. According to the petitioner, despite the said direction, the respondent No.2 or his subordinates namely, respondents No.3 and 4 have not implemented the said order. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking that mandamus be issued in that regard.
3. The learned Government Advocate, who was directed to take notice for the respondents has secured instructions in the matter and would submit that there is certain practical difficulties in implementing the order dated 04.08.2016, the implementation of which was ordered by the Court below on 06.07.2017.
4. If that be the position, the appropriate course for the respondents is to file an appropriate report before the Court below in O.S.No.265/2016 explaining to the Court below these aspects of the matter and the impediment to implement, which would be considered therein. Needless to mention that notwithstanding the same, if the petitioner has any further grievance in that regard that respondent No.2, to whom the direction was issued on 06.07.2017 has not implemented the order of the Court below, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to file necessary application before the Court below seeking action against the said respondent and a writ petition of the present nature for a mandamus in any event need not be entertained by this Court.
5. Therefore, reserving such liberty to the petitioner as also to the respondents in the manner as indicated above, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST