IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P.NO.8505/2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAYYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCCUPATION:BUSINESSMAN R/O NO.713, KAATAPPA GARADI ROAD DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE-570001.
(By Smt. RASHMI JADHAV, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MIRZA ROAD, NEAR GANDHIVANA PARK NAZARBAD, LOKARANJAN MAHAL ROAD, MYSORE-570010.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NARASIMHARAJ DIVISION MYSORE-570001.
4. POLICE INSPECTOR METTAGALLI POLICE STATION METAGALLI, MYSORE-570020.
5. SUB-INSPECTOR METTAGALLI POLICE STATION … PETITIONER METAGALLI MYSORE-570020.
(By Mr. B. BALAKRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 ISSUED BY R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A. DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE / DELETE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM ROWDY SHEET. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT RESPONDENT POLICE NOT TO HARASS THE PETITIONER BY CALLING HIM OFTEN TO THE POLICE STATION AND MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM IN PUBLIC & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.01.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner 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 petition is disposed of with liberty that if the petitioner submits representation to the competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation by a speaking order and in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE RV