Karnataka High Court
Sri C A Siddalingaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION. NO.19216 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C.A. SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O AMATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS POLICE SUB-INSEPCTOR
MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
WEST DIVISION
TRAFFIC D.C.P. YESHWANTHAPUR
BENGALURU CITY.
2. H.P. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE M. PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETIRED PSI
R/AT # 10, 1ST 'C' MAIN ROAD
MUNESHWARA BLOCK
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 086.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE (P/H)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT
2
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL &
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE OF KARNATAKA
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION AT BENGALURU
1ST FLOOR, 5TH PHASE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
(AMEMDED AS PER ORDER DATED:03.12.2019)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY. SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGA FOR R1 & R2(P/H)
SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(ABSENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED:18.07.2009 IN HRC NO.3679/2009 PASSED BY
THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BENGALURU VIDE
ANNX-D IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO DIRECTION THAT SAID
AMOUNT COULD BE RECOVERED FROM THE OFFICERS AND THE
ORDER DATED:02.03.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2, SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-F
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru as well as 3 order dated 02.03.2018 passed by Director General and Inspector General of Police, State of Karnataka, Bengaluru, inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid orders have been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders.
2. Facts leading to filing of the petition briefly stated are that Petitioner No.1 at the relevant time, was posted at R.T.Nagar Police Station as Police Sub-Inspector. On 10.07.2009, the Petitioner No.1 Sri.Manjunath and Sri.Bhuvanesh were called for investigation to the Police Station in connection with a complaint of their scuffle with one Sri.Deepu, Sri.Chandramohan and Sri.Karthik. It is the case of the petitioner that aforesaid Sri.Manjunath while in custody, complained of chest pain and was shifted to the hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.
3. The mother of the complainant submitted a complaint to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the 4 Commission'). The Commission, by an order dated 18th July 2009, made the following recommendations to the State Government.
i) The issue pertaining to custodial death of deceased Manjunath on account of torture by the Police Officers of R.T.Nagar Police Station shall not be investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation and the Home Department shall take all steps in this regard.
ii) The Home Department, Government of Karnataka, shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the deceased Manjunath as interim compensation which amount could be recovered from the Police Officer responsible for the custodial death of aforesaid Manjunath.
4. It is pertinent to note that in the aforesaid proceedings before the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, the petitioners have not been impleaded a party. After a period of nine years, the Director General of Police issued an order dated 02.03.2018 directing that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be recovered from the petitioners. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
5
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Karnataka State Commission dated 18.07.2009 and the order passed by the Director General of Police dated 02.03.2018 are ab initio void as the same has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that neither any notice nor any opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. It is also urged that there is a delay of 9 years in initiating the action for recovery of the amount from the petitioners. Therefore, the aforesaid order is bad in law in view of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the order passed by the State Government.
6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. Section 16 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1992 incorporates principles of natural justice and provides that the persons who are likely to be prejudicially affected have to be heard. In the instant case, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 6 However, in Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the aforesaid report, the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission has recorded an adverse finding against the petitioners. The Commission has passed impugned order in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the State Human Rights Commission insofar as it contests the finding against the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed to the extent it pertains to the petitioners.
7. The order dated 02.03.2018 has been passed by the Director General of Police after a period of nine years directing recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that the Commission has recommended that the amount of interim compensation could be recovered from the Police Officer responsible for custodial death of Sri.Manjunath. The Departmental Enquiry has been initiated against the petitioners in respect of charges pertaining to death of Sri.Manjunath in which they have been exonerated. In 7 the absence of determination of liability on the petitioners to pay the amount of compensation as well as taking into account the fact that the impugned order dated 02.03.2018 has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, the impugned order dated 02.03.2018 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the Commission insofar as it pertains to any adverse finding against the petitioners as well as the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by the Director General of Police, are hereby quashed. In the result, the petitions are allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BNV