Karnataka High Court
L.Shankarlal Mali vs Government Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.41311/2013 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
L.SHANKARLAL MALI
S/O SRI LACHIRAMJI MALI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 153
EWBS, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD A CROSS
4TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
KHB COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560079 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B S SATYANAND, ADV.)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560079
4. MRS. M SAROJA
W/O MR. Y MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.16/39, 2ND MAIN ROAD
K G S LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040
2
5. MR. Y MANJUNATHA
S/O MR. YERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.16/39, 2ND MAIN ROAD
K G S LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E S INDIRESH, HCGP. FOR R1-3
NOTICE TO R4 & 5 ARE NOT NECESSARY)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNX-D & G I.E. FIR
NO.551/2013, & COMPLAINT DT.8.9.2013; DIRECT BY WAY OF
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO
THE R-1 & R2 TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY INTO THE ENTIRE
INCIDENT AND PERTAINING TO ANX-D & G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 3. He is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No. 4 and 5 is unnecessary.
2. The petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to respondents No. 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry into the entire incident pertaining to Annexures-D and G. Further, mandamus is also sought to respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to peacefully 3 carryon the construction work over the schedule property by providing appropriate Police Protection to the petitioner as per Annexure-B.
3. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is in actual possession and enjoyment of Site Nos. 232 & 234, New No.232 (Old No.49/3), Srigandhada Kaval Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, respondent No.3 at the behest of respondents No. 4 and 5 is seeking to interfere with the construction activity that is being carried on by the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though in W.P.No.37976/2013, an order of status-quo was granted by taking note of the submission that the site is vacant, the petitioners therein had not disclosed that the petitioner herein is putting up construction and therefore has obtained such order therein. It is his further case that despite there being no direction in the said order to the Police Authorities to implement the order, they are seeking to interfere with the possession. Reference is made to the communication at Annexure-G dated 08.09.2013, wherein reference is made to the said order 4 and the petitioner has been asked not to carry on any activities in the said property.
4. If these aspects are kept in view, I am of the opinion that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2013 passed in W.P.No.37976/2013 and the petitioner is able to establish that the order of the status-quo granted therein would not be sustainable, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to take steps in that regard. Presently, all that respondent No.3 has done is to take note of an order passed by this Court and in such circumstance, though there is no such material to indicate that respondent No.3 is interfering except wherein he had indicated to the petitioner that the orders of the High Court is to be obeyed. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it would be necessary for the petitioner to obtain necessary clarification in the pending writ petition which relates to the property in question. Therefore, the mandamus as sought in the instant petition, in my opinion is not maintainable unless the petitioner seeks appropriate relief in the appropriate proceedings.
5
Hence, reserving that liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms