Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Kunhi Kanna on 11 December, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NOS.364/2012 & 576-611/2012
IN
WRIT PETITION NOS.38535-571/2011
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-01.
3. THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -01
REP BY THE SECRETARY.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA
ROAD, BANGALORE
...PETITIONERS
(BY: SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP,)
2
AND:
1. SRI KUNHI KANNA
AGE 49 YEARS
AHC 57, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
2. SRI K.VASU NAIK
AGE 52 YEARS
AHC, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
AGE 50 YEARS
AHC 191, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
4. SRI A.RAGHAVA
AGE 49 YEARS
AHC 229, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
5. SRI K.UMESH RAO
AGE 52 YEARS
AHC 58, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
6. SRI M.LINGAPPA GOUDA
AGE 48 YEARS
AHC 149, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
7. SRI H.L.RAGHURAMA
AGE 49 YEARS
AHC 1425, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3
8. SRI K.KRISHNAPPA GOUDA
AGE 48 YEARS
AHC 1420, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
9. SRI K.P.LINGAPPA GOUDA
AGE 49 YEARS
AHC 171, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
10. SRI BALAKRISHNA
AGE 55 YEARS
AHC 272, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
11. SRI DINESHA
AGE 50 YEARS
ACH 1490, VINOOR P.S.
BELLATANGADY TALUK
VINOOR POST, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
12. SRI SRINIVASA PAI
AGE 58 YEARS
AHC 52, BLOCK NO.8
ROOM NO 38
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE 1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
13. SRI MAHALINGA PATALI
AGE 55 YEARS, AHC 150
BLOCK NO.25, ROOM NO.123,
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA
14. SRI GENOJI RAO
AGE 49 YEARS, AHC 150
BLOCK NO.2, ROOM NO 7
POLICE LANE, DAR OFFICE
4
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
15. SRI M.BALACHANDRA
AGE 48 YEARS
AHC 124, BLOCK NO.2
ROOM NO.10, POLICE LANE
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
16. SRI A.LAXMANA GOWDA
AGE 51 YEARS
PC NO.120, BLOCK NO.16
ROOM NO.87, POLICE LANE
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
17. SRI V.GOPALA
AGE 59 YEARS
AHC 257, BLOCK NO.A1
ROOM NO.4, POLICE LANE
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
18. SRI PADMANABHA K
AGE 53 YEARS
AHC 1494, BLOCK NO.27
ROOM NO.131, POLICE LANE
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
19. SRI RAGHU N
AGE 58 YEARS
AHC 72, BLOCK NO.4
ROOM NO.17, POLICE LANE
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
20. SRI G.CHANDRASHEKARA GOUDA
AGE 58 YEARS, AHC 129
BALILA POST AND VILLAGE
HOUSE NO.1/62, BELEHITHLU HOUSE
SULLIA TALUK.
5
21. SRI C.PRABHAKARA
AGE 51 YEARS, AHC 151
CAR, ACP OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
22. SRI C.H.JAYENDRA
AGE 49 YEARS, AHC 218
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
23. SRI B.RAMANNA POOJERY
AGE 48 YEARS
AHC 1413, COP OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
24. SRI P.SRIDHARA
AGE 46 YEARS
AHC 269, BLOCK NO 26
ROOM NO.130, POLICE LANE
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
25. SRI B.RAJU BELCHADA
AGE 57 YEARS, AHC 1442
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
26. SRI DEVAYYA M
AGE 51 YEARS, AHC 165
BLOCK NO.8, ROOM NO.1
OLD POLICE LANE, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
27. SRI SHIVA NAIKA
AGE 48 YEARS, AHC 45
DAR OFFICE, MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
28. SRI Y.RAJENDRA
AGE 55 YEARS
6
AHC 17, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
29. SRI A.CHANDRASHEKARA
AGE 52 YEARS
AHC 300, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
30. SRI CHANDRA MARKALA
AGE 37 YEARS, AHC 33
S/O LATE GOPALA MARAKALA
II BLOCK NO.14, POLICE LANE
MANIPAL, DAR OFFICE
ABEYOOR, UDUPI
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
31. SRI JANARDHANA
AGE 56 YEARS, AHC 31
DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE POLICE
DAR OFFICE, UDUPI.
32. SRI K.RAJENDRA
AGE 42 YEARS
AHC 7, DAR OFFICE, UDUPI.
.
33. SRI B.R.GUDNAL
AGE 59 YEARS
ARSI ARB BIJAPUR
HOUSE NO.92, CITB LAYOUT
REZZA TOWN, 4TH CROSS
ISLAMPUR ROAD, OLD HUBLI
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
34. SRI K.R.VENKATESHREDDI
AGE 48 YEARS, HC NO.63, C PADE
7TH KSRP, ASEGOLI, DAR OFFICE
MANGALORE-1.
35. SRI B.R.N.PRASAD
HC (WIRELESS) SHIMOGA
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE
7
SHIMOGA POLICE CONTROL
ROOM, SHIMOGA.
36. SRI N.CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGE 51 YEARS, ASI (WIRELESS)
DGP CONTROL ROOM
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE
37. SRI P.C.HIREMATH
AGE 55 YEARS
S/O CHANNAVEERAYYA
COMMANDANT 4, SRIMATA NILAYA
OPP.80 FT. ROAD
VENKATAREDDY LAYOUT
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA
BANGALORE -95.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI.B.B.GOUDAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R32 &
R34, R36-ABSENT,
R33, R35, R37 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED )
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 08-11-2011 PASSED IN
WP NOS.38535-571/2011 (GM-RES), ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These review petitions are filed by the State Government and the Department of Urban Development along with the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bangalore, seeking review of the order dated 8 08-11-2011 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.38535-571/2011.
2. The said writ petitions were filed by the respondents herein seeking direction to the review petitioners to pay one increment, cash rewards and allotment of house sites to them in their home district or district of their choice in terms of the Government order dated 08-07-2005 issued by the State Government.
3. It is not in dispute that the Government order dated 08-07-2005 provided to the 754 police personnel who were part of the Special Task Force on 18-10-2004, the date on which forest brigand Veerappan was killed with certain benefits including allotment of sites.
4. The grievance made in the writ petitions was that though they were also part of the said 754 members of the Special Task Force involved in the operation against Veerappan on 18-10-2004, their case was not considered for extending the benefits like grant 9 of increment, allotment of house sites etc., as extended to the other members of the task force. When the writ petitions came up before this Court on 08-11-2011, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents, on the submission made at the bar by the counsel for the parties stating that in similar circumstances, this Court had already disposed of several writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons issuing certain directions following the judgment in K.NINGARAJU & OTHERS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & OTHERS - ILR 2011 KAR 938, in respect of police men who had served as members of the Special Task Force for allotment of sites etc., this Court found that the petitioners who claimed that they were part of the task force as on 18-10-2004 were also entitled for similar relief provided, they established that they had rendered their services as members of the Special Task Force for nabbing the forest brigand Veerappan. This order has been apparently passed on the assertion made by the 10 petitioners in para No.1 of the writ petitions that they were amongst 754 members of the Special Task Force who were involved in the operation of capturing Veerappan as on 18-10-2004.
5. The main contention of the review petitioners / State Government and its authorities is that the respondents herein who were the writ petitioners in the proceedings under review were not part of the 754 members of the Special Task Force in the operation against Veerappan and that they have misrepresented before this Court on the said fact.
6. Though this matter is listed on several occasions before this Court, the counsel for the respondents/ writ petitioners were not present. It is undeniable that the respondents herein asserted in their writ petitions that they were amongst 754 members of the Special Task Force who were involved in the operation of capturing Veerappan as on 18-10-2004. But the contention of the review petitioners is that they 11 were not so involved on the date when Veerappan was captured.
7. The Government order based on which the relief was sought in the writ petitions made it clear that the benefits were extended to 754 police personnel who were part of Special Task Force that killed Veerappan on 18-10-2004. Hence, as the assertion made by the review petitioners in the writ petitions filed by them that they were also part of 754 personnel who killed Veerappan on 18-10-2004 has been denied and the said denial in the review petitions is not countered by filing any objection, it emerges that by misrepresenting the said fact, the petitioners have obtained the order from the hands of this Court.
8. Indeed in the representation submitted by them addressed to the Director General and Inspector General of Police which are enclosed to the writ petitions as Annexures-F1 to F37, they have either asserted that they were not part of Special Task Force 12 on 18-10-2004 or have not mentioned the actual dates during which they served as members of the Special Task Force. This is evident from the papers of the writ petitions which have been directed to be put up along with these review petitions. Therefore, it emerges from the said fact also that these assertions made by the petitioners in para No.1 of the writ petitions that they were part of 754 members of the Special Task Force on 18-10-2004 is false and misleading.
9. If the petitioners were not part of the 754 members as on 18-10-2004, they are not entitled for the benefit under the Government order. It is now clear from the materials adverted to above, and the deliberate omission on the part of the respondents in not filing the statement of objections denying the assertion made by the review petitioners coupled with the absence of the learned counsel who represents the respondent - Officials that they have obtained the order under review by misleading this Court and making false representation in para No.1 of the writ petitions. 13 Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that these review petitions deserve to be allowed. The order under challenge requires to be set aside. There is no other aspect that needs to be considered in these writ petitions. The entire order in the writ petitions was based on the assertions made by the writ petitioners that they were part of the 754 members of Special Task Force and were involved in the operation of capturing Veerappan on 18-10-2004 and therefore they were also entitled for the benefits on par with the other who formed part of the said 754 members. As I have held that this is a false representation made by the writ petitioners before this Court, they are not entitled for any relief. The sole basis on which these writ petitions were filed was founded on false representation, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER These review petitions are allowed. 14 The impugned order dated 08-11-2011 passed in W.P.Nos.38535-571/2011 is set aside. These writ petitions are restored to file.
As the writ petitions are filed misrepresenting the fact and as the writ petitioners were not part of the 754 members of the Special Task Force who were involved in the operation of capturing Veerappan on 18-10-2004, they are not entitled for the benefits accorded to such persons under the Government order dated 08-07-2005.
The prayer made by them seeking writ of mandamus to extend similar benefits and reward cannot be granted. Hence, writ petitions filed in W.P.Nos.38535-571/2011 are dismissed.
Office is directed to place copy of the order dated 11-12-2013 in 15 R.P.Nos.364/2012&576-611/2012 in W.P.Nos.38535-571/2011 Sd/-
JUDGE VMB