Karnataka High Court
Sri Ilyas Ahamed vs State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.3316/2015 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN :
Sri Ilyas Ahamed,
S/o. late H.A.Basheer,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.11/1, II Main,
Shampura Main Road,
Gandhinagar, A.C.Post,
Bengaluru-560092.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. Chandrashekar.K, Adv., for
Sri. Kiran.S.Javali, Adv.)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Home Secretary,
Department of Home & Legal Affairs,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Bangalore City,
Infantry Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
-2-
3. Police Inspector & Station House Officer,
D.J.Halli Police Station,
Bengaluru-560045.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, HCGP)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
mandamus to close the history/rowdy sheet maintained
by the R-2 in respect of the petitioner and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to close the history/rowdy sheet opened and maintained against the petitioner by respondent No.3 police.
2. The petitioner claims that he is an Engineer by profession and is not involved in any criminal activities. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite there being no reason for the respondents to come to a conclusion that the name of the petitioner is to be -3- included in the rowdy register, such decision is taken without basis. It is the case of the petitioner that, though the petitioner had not involved himself in any criminal activities, a case under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered and the petitioner was directed to execute a bond for maintaining peace in the area. It is his further contention that no other criminal case has been registered against him and despite the petitioner not answering the requirement as provided in Order 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, his name has been included and is continued in the rowdy sheet which is affecting the reputation of the petitioner and his family members. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus.
3. In a matter of the present nature, apart from the fact as to whether any case is registered, the competent authority is also required to keep in view, -4- whether the conduct of any person is of such nature as is indicated in Order 1059 so as to enter the name in the register and maintain surveillance of such person. Even such action of the respondents would have to be done with some basis and these are aspects which are required to be kept in view by the respondents and the requirement is also that the review is to be made annually to find out as to whether the name is required to be continued in the rowdy register.
4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted the liberty of making a representation to respondent No.2 bringing to his notice that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal activities and the name if continued in the rowdy register shall be deleted. On such representation being made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall secure the information from respondent No.3, verify the same and if it is found that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal -5- activities or does not answer the requirement in the Karnataka Police Manual, appropriate orders shall be passed to delete the name of the petitioner from the rowdy register. In any event, the order on the representation shall be passed by respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which the representation and a copy of this order is submitted to respondent No.2.
Petition is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl ct-bl