IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION NO.125 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
UMESH S/O MUTHAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A NO.4, SRI. BALAJI NILAYA RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE ROAD BDA LAYOUT, HULIMAVU BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076 … PETITIONER (BY SMT. M.D.ANURADHA URS, ADV., FOR SRI.C.V.SUDHINDRA, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOMES, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HULIMAVU POLICE STATION HULIMAVU BENGALURU – 560 076 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2019 PASSED IN WP NO.47211/2014 (GM – POLICE), ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt. M.D.Anuradha Urs, learned Counsel for Sri C.V.Sudhindra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition is filed to review the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.47211/2014 (GM- Police) by this Court. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs, the same reliefs raised in the writ petition also:
(a) Direct the respondent to register the case in relation to taking over of the cable business and conduct proper and fair investigation.
(b) Direct the respondent to restore the cable business of petitioner as existed prior to the interference of the respondent police and pass such other writ or writs as this Hon’ble court deems fit.
However, this Court while disposing the writ petition by order dated 02.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.47211/2014 (GM-Police), did not advert to the aforesaid prayers.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take a proper action, if not already covered in Crime No.358/2013, in accordance with law, in the light of the prayers contained in W.P.No.47211/2014 (GM- Police) and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘LALITA KUMARI V. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS’, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case with the aforesaid order dated 02.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.47211/2014 (GM-Police).
Accordingly, the Review Petition is disposed of.
cp* Sd/- JUDGE