Karnataka High Court
Sri Adarsh G K vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2017
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.32054/2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI ADARSH G.K.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O. SRI K.GOPAL KRISHNA
GENERAL SECRETARY
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS FORUM
NO.4/A, HMS COMPLEX
CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 002.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.R. MOHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. Dr. H.SUDARSHAN BALLAL
MAJOR,
CHAIRMAN-MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARD
AND DIRECTOR-MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES
MANIPAL HOSPITAL
2
NO.98, HAL AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 017.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.G. SHIVANNA, AAG FOR
SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP R1 & R2;
SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, M/s. SHETTY AND
HEGDE ASSOCIATES, ADVS. FOR R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF QUO WARRANTO FOR REMOVAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
AS MEMBER OF THE STATE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
APPOINTED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IN TERMS OF
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27.05.2014 AS PER
ANNEXURE-F AND ALSO TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 27.05.2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-F; TO STRIKE DOWN
THE AMENDED S.20C OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963
AS PER ANNEXURE -C DATED 09.08.2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be the General Secretary of Human Rights Defenders Forum, Bengaluru - 560 002, filed this petition to (i) quash Government Order dated 27.05.2014, whereby the 3rd respondent was appointed as the Member of State Police Complaints Authority (for short 'SPCA'), from the Civil Society and (ii) strike down Section 20-C of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 amended as per Karnataka Act No.30 of 2012 with effect from 09.08.2012. 3
2. Sri G.R. Mohan, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner gives up the challenge to the validity of the amendment made to Section 20-C of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 as per Karnataka Act No.30 of 2012. In view of the submission made, it is unnecessary to consider the 2nd prayer, noticed supra.
3. Sri G.R. Mohan, submitted that the 3rd respondent, being an eminent Doctor, in view of his professional engagements will be unable to devote his time as a Member of the SPCA. He submitted that the 3rd respondent is the Chairman of Medical Advisory Board and he is also the Medical Director of Manipal Health Enterprises, where his service is required on day to day basis and on account of the same, he will be unable to do justice to the citizens, who approach SPCA for redressal of the grievance.
4. On the other hand, Sri A.G. Shivanna, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the committee constituted to recommend panel of names from among the 4 members of the Civil Society for nomination to the SPCA having met on 03.02.2014, recommended a panel of four names for considering one among the panel to be nominated as the Member of SPCA and having regard to the same, in pursuance of Section 20-C of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2012, Government of Karnataka, appointed the 3rd respondent as Member of SPCA, from Civil Society. He submitted that the 3rd respondent possesses the required qualification and there being no infirmity in the said appointment, there is no merit in the writ petition. He further submitted that the 3rd respondent has made himself available at all meetings of the SPCA from 27.05.2014 and his professional engagements have not come in the way of his functioning as the Member of the SPCA, from Civil Society.
5. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the 3rd respondent apart from achieving excellence in the field of Medicine is also a Rajyotsava awardee, conferred by the Government of 5 Karnataka for his outstanding service in the field of Medicine and Nephrology. He submitted that after the order vide Annexure-F was issued, the 3rd respondent being conscious of the importance of SPCA and his responsibility as the Member attended the meetings of SPCA in all honesty and sincerity and devoted the time and energy without giving scope for any person to raise any kind of objection. Learned Senior counsel submitted that there being neither any arbitrariness nor illegality in the matter of issuance of Government Order as at Annexure-F, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the Government had not taken steps for constitution of the District Police Complaints Authorities (for short 'DPCA') and there was deficiency in the matter of providing infrastructure to both SPCA and DPCAs. In number of DPCAs, the Members had not been appointed and infrastructure was not made available. Hence, several orders were passed from time to time in this petition. As 6 of now, the DPCAs have become functional and SPCA which had not submitted even the annual report, prepared the annual reports and submitted the same to the Government. The directions issued from time to time commencing from 02.09.2014 have been implemented by the State Government.
7. The SPCA should perform its functions by keeping in view the object behind its establishment and should supervise, monitor and control the functioning of DPCAs. As the teething problems have been taken care of and the SPCA and DPCAs have been made fully functional to achieve the object as was expected by the Apex Court in the case of PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 and having regard to the passage of time i.e., from the date Annexure-F was issued, there is no justification to quash Annexure-F.
8. However, the petitioner having highlighted the inadequacies in the matter of constitution of SPCA and establishment and functioning of DPCAs, has rendered 7 social service for the benefit of the citizens. In the circumstances, it can be expected that the Government would utilize the honorary service of the petitioner in matters relating to safeguarding of human rights or in the matter of appointment in future as a Member of SPCA/DPCA, from the Civil Society.
In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca