Karnataka High Court
Executive Board Of Methodist Church In ... vs The Commissioner Of Police on 29 April, 2016
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
W.A. No.100634/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W.A. No. 100634/2016 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN :
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF METHODIST CHURCH IN INDIA
REP. BY ITS: DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
REV. DR. PRABHAKAR SHADRACK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O. SHRI. SHADRACK TIGADOLLI
R/O. METHODIST CHURCH-BELAGAVI
MISSION COMPOUND (OPP. TO DISTRICT COURT)
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590 016. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRIYUTHS G. R.RAIBAGI & SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BELAGAVI CITY BELAGAVI
BELAGAVI-590 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE MARKET SUB-DIVISION
BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI-590 001.
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
MARKET POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI
BELAGAVI-590 001.
-2-
W.A. No.100634/2016
4. SHANKAR MUNAVALLI
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA MUNAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O. 1151, SARAF GALLI
SHAHPUR BELAGAVI
BELAGAVI-590 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANANTH MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MURUGENDRA B. TUBAKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2016, PASSED IN
W.P.NO.59749/2015 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY
THE APPELLANT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, H.G. RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Dispensation sought for is ordered. I.A. No.2/2016 is allowed accordingly. I.A. No.3/2016 is dismissed as not pressed.
2. This intra Court appeal is directed against an order dtd. 14.03.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant's writ petition in W.P. No.59749/2015.
3. We have heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the -3- W.A. No.100634/2016 impugned order. The writ petition was filed against the notice dtd. 26.12.2015 (Annexure-U) issued by respondent No.3-the Police Inspector, Market Police Station, Belagavi.
4. The learned Single Judge, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has dismissed the petition with the following reasoning:
"32. On the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench as stated supra, the present notice issued by the 3rd respondent-Police Officer directing the petitioner to obey the order passed by this Court. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the notice issued, he could have very well approached the 3rd respondent by producing any other documents/Court orders said to have been passed to protect its right, if it is in possession. Instead of approaching the concerned respondent/authority by producing material documents to prove his possession on the basis of the Court orders, the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, the very approach by the petitioner by filing the writ petition is not maintainable. The 3rd respondent has only issued notice directing the petitioner to obey the orders passed by this Court as stated supra. The same is in accordance with law and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
33. Be that as it may. It is suffice to observe that this Court has not decided the rights of the parties in respect of the properties in question entering into merits of the case.
34. However, it is for the Civil Court to decide the rights between the parties and if any decree to be passed by the Civil Court between the parties, it is always binding on the parties to the lis, Revenue Authorities as well as the jurisdictional Police Officer to implement the same.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed."
5. We find no error in the consideration made by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference. The writ -4- W.A. No.100634/2016 appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, I.A. Nos.1 & 4/2016 do not survive for consideration; they stand disposed of accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BNS