Sri Manohar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Manohar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                                1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

       WRIT PETITION NO.29094/2013 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI MANOHAR
S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A NO.N32, 5TH CROSS
L N PURA, SRIRAMPURA
BANGALORE-560021                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI N SRIRAM REDDY, ADV.)


AND:

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND LEGAL
     AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-560001
     REP. BY ITS HOME SECRETARY

  2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
     BANGALORE CITY
     INFANTRY ROAD
     BANGALORE-560001

  3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
     SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION
     SRIRAMPURA
     BANGALORE-560021

  4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
     NORTH DIVISION
     BANGALORE CITY-560021          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP.)
                               2


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
FROM THE ROWDY LIST.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list.

2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Bangalore. He claims that he is a social and political activist. His brother is stated to have been a Corporator in Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike from the year 2003-2008. In that regard, it is contended that though a case in Crime No.133/2010 was registered against the petitioner without any basis, he has undergone trial and has been acquitted of the offence alleged against him. The petitioner contends that he has not involved himself in any other illegal activities and despite the same, the respondents have wrongly included his name in the rowdy list maintained by the third respondent-Police 3 station. The petitioner has made a representation to the second respondent dated 10.042013 seeking that the name of the petitioner be removed from the rowdy list. Since, the same has not received consideration, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The very case to which the petitioner has referred in his petition where he has claimed that he has been acquitted has also been referred to in the objection statement. However, the respondents contend that the petitioner had involved himself in several petty cases and his involvement was being watched by the respondents and therefore, it was found that it would be appropriate to have his name included in the rowdy list. Hence, the respondents seek to justify their action.

4. Having noticed the rival contentions, the provision contained vide Order 1059 in the Police Manual would provide for the circumstances under which a person could be included in the rowdy list. In the present facts 4 initially his name has been included in view of his involvement in the case which has been referred to in the petition as well as the objection statement. The fact the he has been acquitted in the said case is not in dispute. The question therefore is as to whether merely because the petitioner was charge sheeted in one of the cases his name should be continue to remain in the rowdy list. Even, in the other circumstances as mentioned in Order 1059, the name could be included. The respondents in their objection statement have no doubt referred to his involvement in other cases.

5. On further consideration of the matter, there is no material whatsoever available with the respondents to justify such contention in the objection statement and to contend that the name of the petitioner should be continued in the rowdy list. When that is the position, certainly, on the present premise the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list cannot be continued. Needless to mention, if at all the petitioner involves himself in any 5 criminal activities in future and if an opinion is formed by the respondents, appropriate action in accordance with law can still be taken against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, a direction is issued to respondents No.2 to 4 to remove the name of the petitioner from the rowdy list maintained in the third respondent-Police station forthwith.

In terms of the above direction, petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court