Sri R Gurushankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri R Gurushankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2018

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

       WRIT PETITION No.13203/2018 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

Sri R Gurushankar
Aged about 49 years
S/o Late Ramaiah
Residing at No.17
3rd main Road, Hutting Colony
Domlur Layout
Bengaluru-560071.                       ...Petitioner

(By Sri.Praveen Kumar K.N., Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by
       Principal Secretary
       Ministry of Home,
       Vidhan Soudha
       Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
       Bangalore 560001.

2.     The Additional Commissioner
       of Police
       Bengaluru East
       Bengaluru-560071.

3.     The Station House Officer
       Halasur Police Station
       Bengaluru City-560071.           ...Respondents

(By Sri.Vijay Kumar.A Patil, AGA)
                               2




      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the
respondents to remove his name forth with in such
register maintained by them as evident in the show
cause notice given by the Respondent No.2 dated
08.02.2018 vide Annexure-A and etc.,

      This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:-


                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents.

2. Perused the records.

3. Petitioner claims to be a person with reputation having involved himself in social activities and claims he is the General Secretary of Bahujana Samaja Party, Bengaluru city and an office bearer of various social organizations. Petitioner contends that respondents have arbitrarily labelled petitioner as a rowdy-sheeter in the register maintained by the respondents and as such, petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of 3 mandamus to the respondents to remove his name forthwith in the Register of Rowdy-sheeters maintained by the respondents and also for quashing of the show-cause notice dated 18.02.2018 (Annexure-A).

4. Perusal of the impugned show-cause notice does not disclose that petitioner having been included in the Register of Rowdy-sheeters. On the other hand, it would disclose that 2nd respondent has issued impugned show-cause notice alleging thereunder that there is likelihood of petitioner disturbing peace and harmony and as such, he has called upon the petitioner to furnish surety for a sum Rs.20,000/- and as such, show-cause notice is issued calling upon petitioner to furnish surety for Rs.20,000/- in order to bind himself for maintaining peace and harmony along with one solvent surety for the like sum for a period of one year. 4

5. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have repeatly held that the writ Court would not exercise jurisdiction where the show-cause notices are challenged until and unless the said show-cause notice is issued by an authority, not having jurisdiction or authority. For this proposition, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER vs. MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 can be looked up whereunder it has been held as follows:

This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should 5 invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premise is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.

6. In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would suffice to grant liberty to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice and also reserve liberty to the respondents to adjudicate the reply submitted to the show-cause notice in accordance with law and expeditiously, if not already adjudicated and disposed of. No opinion is expressed on the merits 6 of the case. Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE bnv* ct-ssd

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court