Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Haroon Rasheed vs Union Of India on 11 November, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT PETITION NO.58157 OF 2016 (GM-RES) PIL
BETWEEN :
MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED
S/O. C R ABDUL RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 86/3,
FIRST FLOOR,
CANARA BANK BUILDING,
COLES ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU 560 005 ... PETITIONER
(BY MR.MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND :
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
OF FINANCE MINISTRY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,
ROOM NO. 39B,
NEW DELHI - 110001
2
2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNOR RBI,
NO. 6, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI,
DELHI - 110001
3. STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560001 ... RESPONDENTS
(MR.PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL
A/W SMT.ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC, FOR R1 AND R2
MR.H.VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R3)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the quash the
following Gazette Notification vide Annexure-M to O i.e., [A]
No.2652 S.O.3407 [E] available at web link
http://finmin.nic.in/172521.pdf, [B] No.2653 S.O. 3408 [E]
http://finmin.nic.in/172522.pdf [C] No.2654 S.O. 3409 [E]
http://finmin.nic.in/172523.pdf of the Central Government and
press release vide Annexure-P & Q 2016-17/1142 the
Notification 2016-17/1142 available at web link
https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PressRelease/PDFs/PR114293A
BB8ED55DA40ED8C80E7800CD47FDE.PDF and press release all
dtd:8.11.2016 with effect from 9.11.2016 issued by the R-1
[Union of India] and R-2 [Reserve Bank of India/RBI] in the
interest justice, equity, good conscience and to uphold the Rule
of law and well-settled legal principles and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE made the following:
3
ORDER
Office objections are overruled.
2. As prayed for by the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for preliminary hearing.
3. This is a writ petition filed by a young lawyer, Mohammed Haroon Rasheed, who is appearing in-person, challenging, in substance, demonetisation of the currency notes of `500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and `1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.
4. Mr.Rasheed raises three points. He submits that there is no reasonable classification in attempting to demonetise the currency notes of `500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and `1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.
He submits that the people, who are not computer savvy, are suffering difficulties in the day-to-day affairs. He submits 4 that vast majority of persons, who are not aware of the use of computers and internets are facing difficulties.
5. Mr.Rasheed submits that the notification was issued hurriedly without giving any intimation to the general public that there is a chance of demonetisation. He submits, further, that the decision was announced in the late evening of November 8, 2016, with effect from 00:00 hours of November 9, 2016.
6. We are not impressed inasmuch as this is a laudable step, as suggested by Mr.Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned Additional Solicitor General, in issuing the notification. He submits that there are large number of fake currencies in India and there is, already, a parallel economy running. The authorities thought it fit and proper to tackle with the situation by demonetization.
The persons, who had valid money which could be accounted for, had no difficulties, but the persons, who had 5 unaccounted money without any valid explanations, would suffer.
7. We are aware that in the wake of insurgencies and running of a parallel economy, which is ruining the backbone of the Indian economy, a major step was necessary. It is true that there are initial problems. Any new system will have some initial problems. We do not think this would be perennial.
8. We do not find any reason to doubt the bona fide of the Central Government for implementing the demonetization.
9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.
10. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV