Karnataka High Court
Praveen Bhai Togadia vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2016
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
W.P.Nos.2867-2868 OF 2016 [GM-POLICE]
BETWEEN:
1. PRAVEEN BHAI TOGADIA
S/O MOHAN BHAI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.50
VAIBHAV BUNGLOW, PART 3
NEARGULAB TOWN, SARKHEJ
GANDHINAGAR HIGHWAY
AHMEDABAD 380025.
GUJARAT STATE.
2. YELLAREDDY
S/O DASARATHREDDY
AGED 24 YEARS
OCC: KARYALAYA PRAMUKH
DHARMASHRI, SHANKARAPURAM
BENGALURU-560004 ... PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI KRISHNA S. DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-01
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L AND O)
DAKSHINNA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MANGALURU CITY,
MANGALURU -D.K.DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3)
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 HEREIN IN PROCEEDING DATED
18.1.2016 THE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Kiran Kumar T.L., the learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have called into question the third respondent's prohibitory order, dated 18.1.2016 (Annexure-A) banning the first petitioner from entering the Police Commissionerate limits of Mangaluru City and from participating in any meeting/function in Mangaluru City for a period of 7 days, that is, from 18.1.2016 to 24.1.2016.
3. Sri Krishna S. Dixit, the learned counsel appearing for Sri Prasanna Deshpande for the petitioners submits that if the respondents have any apprehension that the entry of the first petitioner into the Police Commissionerate limits of Mangaluru would create law and order problem, then the first petitioner would change his travel plan and route map; he would go from Bengaluru to Sringeri by road. He submits that the first petitioner would not make any speeches, would not 3 address public gathering and would not issue any press statement or press release. The first petitioner's visit to Sringeri is purely personal and religious. The first petitioner proposes to have darshan of the Diety in Sringeri, pay his respects to the Shrine and get back to Bengaluru.
4. He submits that the first petitioner would send the revised itinerary to the concerned authorities, as per the requirements of 'Z plus' security coverage. He prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' anticipated representation in that regard as expeditiously as possible.
5. Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that as many as 19 criminal cases are registered against the first petitioner. He submits that the respondents have the apprehension that the first petitioner's visit to the sensitive areas in the State would create serious law and order problem, as he is used to making provocative speeches, as is evident from the impugned order. He submits that the first petitioner is not entitled to any relief in anticipation of his making an application for traveling from Bengaluru to Sringeri and back from Sringeri to Bengaluru by road. He submits that, if the 4 first petitioner makes one such application, the same would be considered depending on the threat perception of the Police, the assessment of consequences of his visit and in the light and spirit of the Apex Court's decision in the first petitioner's case only - STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DR.PRAVEEN BHAI THOGADIA reported in (2004) 4 SCC
684.
6. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. While exercising the individual liberty, one should not injure, hurt or harm anybody. To quote John Stuart Mill, an ardent exponent of individual liberty, liberty does not mean "shouting fire, fire, fire in a crowded theatre". The petitioners have to exercise their liberties without creating disharmony, without disturbing equilibrium, without sacrificing public peace and tranquility and without undermining the national integration in the country, which is the world's most heterogeneous society.
7. If the first petitioner makes an application indicating the change in the itinerary, there is no reason why the respondents or any other concerned authorities should not consider the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. It is for the petitioners to show 5 their bona fides before the concerned authorities by filing the necessary undertaking to the effect that in the course of the first petitioner visiting the Sringeri Shrine, they would not make any speeches, much less hate speeches, would not hold any public meetings, would not issue any press statement or press release and would also restrain the first petitioner's followers, particularly, the members of Vishwa Hindu Parishat, headed by the first petitioner, from doing anything, which would lead to the law and order problem and would not relay his speeches using the audio-visual devices. If the concerned authorities are not satisfied with the undertaking, it is also open to them to impose such additional conditions, which they deem fit in the circumstances of the case, while considering the first petitioner's request for clearing his revised itinerary.
8. With these observations these petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
9. A carbon copy of this order is directed to be issued to the learned Additional Government Advocate forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR