Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha (R) vs Sri B S Yediyurappa on 8 December, 2008

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha (R) vs Sri B S Yediyurappa on 8 December, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 1510 (KAR.), 2009 (2) AIR KAR R 462

Bench: B.S.Patil

IR mm men c-mm': of mmarmm AT  
DATED THIS ma 875 mar or m:cEM3E_a.§'.é6§*é%1'Lj*::   

?RE8EKT_W__  v ._V' 

THE r~1oN*nLE MR. 9.1). nINA1<Ai2A1¥§; 

mm Horrnm Ib!R.JtuIﬁ;3?'I?V'§:('3Ii;_»B.h$§FA§:'_I'fvI5L 
writ Petitiog 
Bctwean: T A      b 'V

zfikhila Kaxnataka Poﬁim 'M83513  " 

Representecl by_.it3"vPII*§$i€ieﬁt._S;i'  Shashidhar

8011 CH" Sri N.R.V¢n1§g'opa1"'Nai&ﬁ;,. aged a§.»)o'ui 48 years

Resicient ofVNg.v1'782', ;§:;;_d_ici.aI ¥,;ay£}u1:__H_ 

GKVK Posf; Baﬁgaihm -¥f560'0.64 _ .. Petitioner

[By Sri  ﬁzz-~' Mjs I{.A.Nagesha, X.M.J0sejph
and Y.N.Nagara-vgi, Adv{3cat:¢9.}.-- V 

zind:

 '  .   z"ra._ papa

£0'

 Vf€q.$, Cunaéjnghaxii Road
. A . i3a:Iga1o;:"c -- 366 052
 _ Represented by its Commissioner

.9' {<4} 

I5~ion't;;!<; 'Minister of Karuataka
V'i.éh'$.,na'v§3§>«!;{ih§1,.--Banga1oIe - 560 00 I

Thé 5iat€_'E1{?:($ﬁOﬂ Oommission
Q KSCMF Bmldjgns, 131 Floor

.  ﬁtzitc of Karnataka by its
V Chief Secretary
,"Vid}:1ana Soudha, Bangalosre -- 5360 001

   



4. The Supcrintémdent
Central Bureau of Investigation
8611313: Read CB} Cross

Bangalore   -

3. B.Sriramu1u
Aged 38 years ,  
P'orm.er Tourism Minister 625' Presezgxt MLA V
Lfigislator Home  " 
Bangalore ~-- 560 001

6. Gdananzlhazxa Raddy
Aged 41 years   «
MLC, Legisiator Heme  _  '
Bangalore ~---- 560'  

3'. ViShW8ﬂa?;}1&1"}T3{?£§Id;§3-«'jV'_ .  
MLA, Legis1ator::_Homé" ' _  -
BaI1ga2or::..--rS't"2xQ'O('§:1__  » V

8. M.Kri5}:{:1_ap}j§a'  _   _
MLA,- Legiajaior Home"
Bangalcxre ~--'5_;60. O01

  I\»'I1}I3.§3i;jf£iju%A' V A' 

 M'LA;  Honjyé'

 Bsguga1a1je«=55epo1

  

V . Bangaiohzf 9:360 001

 3' 1.§,.V'P€a13..dis}fi"'Reddy

 Raddy

MLA, Legislatzir Home

 " A .  L_,A,°'A_Legis1at0r Home
_  Ealigaiorc -- 560 OC11

 MLA, Legislator Home
Bangalore --- 560 001

 

 



17.

18.

:33.

24.5
:2:

13. Katta Subramamya Naidu

MLA, Legislator Home
Bangalozt: -- 560 081

14. K.S.Eswarappa

NILA, Legtsiator Home
Bangalore --- 560 001

15. Smt. Shobha Karandiagc:

MIA, Legislator Home
Bangaiore --~ 560 001

16. S.A.R3vindrana1:21

MLA, Legislator Home V
Bangalore --- 5€::{l='  

Mﬁrinivas V .V ii. V

MIA, Legisiatmf V¥*I0iI:{rEi:;:A_  ~  V

Ba}:1ga1oItr_ -~ 5630   '1 'V

M.P.Renu}{aQ:h'a1ya    " 
MLA, Legislator H~:}m(:_
Bangaiqre -~ 5360 Q0 1- 

 Patii Révbbr
VMLA', .L_egi._s1:~;njtc1f ﬂame

Ea;iga1¢m_:-._5e0 Q01;

, Nehi11__ "'§VJeo1§=3~i'a §j_(i'iiave1i)
 MLA, Legisdatér' Home
 ~ .. « , _ Bangalorevvw 566 00 1

'\9E:cz§é1iii:a Charanthnéth
M§;'3.,"Legisiat0r Home

 .. Ba1:1jga1om -~ 560 GO}

'L*i{amaIﬂca1*a Raddy
" "MLA, Legislator Home

Bangalore -~ 560 001

 

.. Respﬂjnderits



State Election Commission to place befoxe this Honble..~«Ce}2et_ 

aﬁdavits of the Iespondents N055 to 22 ﬁled by    _  

of ﬁling of their nominations fbr  the eieeiioee 

Karnataka State Legisiative Assemlﬂy helei. ._ Mayj 2iQQ8. " n'I';f1e3r V 

have also prayed for a dixection to the  ";'espene!e_x:rt   'and.
place before this Hoxfble Court the jéouﬁ-he peﬁdmg"¢rimma1

cases against the respondents Ne:3.'5

2.1. The petitiomtr abgée' Ieliefs strongly placed zeliazraee cm in the case of SECRETARY, v:_: VEKVJRAL ENGINEERING SERWCES. reported in (2062) 5 sec

521. But in ' Court has in ciear terms deIJn;aICateg1.;:fhe..pov;re1- Vehe Court under Article 226 of the Whiie refernh g any matters fer the enquiry : by A none can dispute the power of ﬁle High V =.,eourt epiier Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CB1, "..ffi:ie'T Vigrower can be exemised only in cases where suﬂicient. material to come to a prima faeie _9Qi1c}usion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is ' not suﬁkient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contraxy, there is a need for the High (101111; on; coxlsiécration of such picadings to come to A conciusion thai the material before it is 3 i.- ' diitct such an inquiry by CB}. This is a M which is clearly dc-ducibic ﬁom t1:';'Cm_>};1'1't'1<,E.ffl':I:1v'..3"1'}.t_:

Court in the case of Common Ccmség 'Coi1x1"ix_;{ t}&1}::"$T1[ ' said judgment at paragraph 1*?-{pf t1iéA.I2ii;>oIt u thus : (SOC p.750, para 174) ":74. The o*t1ici*--. :'din'.=ct3':;n, ":;a§m1y, the direction to CB! to i11ve:stV_1'gvé1tcV othcf is wholly cn'o:r1f:0"u$"_'. h Obviously, __dL?='e<;tié)n';'.f01*._h;v*<:$tigation can be given only an cﬁégcg W13 iacié, found to have been ccimxnittbd involvement is prizzua facic estz§h_]i$hcd,_ but direction to CB! to ixlvcgtigatc Whmghér' any person has committed an céaiiiiofv be legally given. Such a he <:<:mtra1y to the concept and .(__)f and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed is a person {Article 2} of the Constituiion. This direct3'.oxi';. is in xaomplctrz nczgation of various V' ' .. ¢1ecis,io1is 0:' this Court in which the concept of __ ._ ""7LIi?E" has been cxpiained in a manner which has mused 'LIFE'i1:1to the lettcrs omrticic 21."

6. It is seen from the above decision 0f this:-_ Court that the right to life: anéer Article 21 :ng1;;;:e;Vs~.---'j"..

the right of a person to five without being hountied the police or (3131 ta find out whether he has_com:iiii:£é{i = any oﬁfence or is living as a ifibiciiizg -1 W Therefore, it is ciear that a deciissiziizi fa inquiry by C3! against a per;s;6'z1z..if the High Court after considiéiiﬁg _theiiimia&ftieiiia2iV:§on record comes to a caiiglusiéii such izﬁiatéfial tines disciose at priﬁi?&'ii_£atiii§ for an investigation by. C31 agency.

and the sa:£;'éi"§:iinn6t d6:;Te'i--'as__..$ matter of 1-otxtinig qr. a party makes some such aiiegaticnszgii'iﬁ_i:ii*.ii'ia2stant case, we see that the coming to a definite cezniliisian t1?aati::th¢i*re is a prima facie case ._ '$9 an inquiry has proceeded on ffifs" and "bats" and thought it agpifiropfiiiiéef.-i the inquiry should be made by _ car. Wifhxféspect, we think that this is not what is V __i'~».requir'et}ii1'hy the law as laié down by this Court in A Xf"case of Conunrm Cause."

-- i:(&.".-:ﬁ]:'iA}£:1aSiS supplied) 2.2. We thtzrcfom, Without any slightest deubt, hold that it may 11:)': be appmpriatc for this Court to grant the relief as prayed for as no material is laced before us for our 1'iaéa--.."§ae'ie F P . . V .

satisfaction to zefer the matter to the C181. 2.3. That apart, it is settled law t11at"'t}3.e« ':;hp{:1a_t_:no=t_ interfere at the stage of notice, in a ﬁeld of poiiee and the executive. The Cou1'tVe.Eto13_Id 1:iotV_ozdViﬁaAri}Ay"£nteifere * L' with an onier in the matters :'.V'.F*i1.1'LC}'1VA'}.'}¢'3I'i4f§%;'iI1g.. eefote either the police or executive or the " the scheme of the law' is that the in\fe~s--t:i"gt-atiozi the police is not olxiizlaxily of this Court under Articles' 'Z226 of India. Even though the Court hag'-.1_;;.oi.=sfer the investigation only if the zequirementtxoftlaw complied with or investigation ie..~3.1ot and promptly [vide STATE OF' wesfr eeNeAL«vet§V"eAMPAT LAL 8:. OTHERS reported in AIR 1935 3C 195- WEST BENGAL vs. SUDHIR DEY reported AIR 1955 ((1985) 1 see 340)].

and again the Apex Court has observed that the H Coéurt should be extremely reluctant in interfering with such of investigation which would otherwiee hamper or slow mandamlm. For ali these reasons the writ petition fails is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-.

Ch2e%£%%%3us%tiC¢ Pmgl /""'" ....

Index: Ykéf __ . V é

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court