Disposed

Shri Harshavardhan S/O Ramachanra Patwardhan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2019WP/110279/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, tenant and advocate alleging threat to life from suit defendants, seeks police protection via representation. Court directs respondents to consider representation considering Government Order dated 21.08.2012 requiring payment of charges, to be passed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to consider representation for police protection in light of Government Order dated 21.08.2012 and pass orders within two weeks.

Shri Harshavardhan S/O Ramachanra Patwardhan Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

W.P. NO. 110279/2019 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI HARSHAVARDHAN, S/O RAMACHANDRA PATWARDHAN, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCN: ADVOCATE, R/O: ASANGI VILLAGE, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, NOW TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, BY ITS SECRETARY, BENGALURU.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF POLICE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶13

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENTS OF POLICE, JAMKHANDI DIVISION, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶15

THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶16

THE POLICE INSPECTOR, BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, (NOW TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI), DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

¶20

RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION BY CONSIDERING REPRESENTATION DATED 02.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR

¶22

PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide Police Protection by considering the representation dated 02.05.2019 produced at Annexure-K.

¶26

The petitioner submits that he is a tenant in CTS No. 6274 situated at Banahatti paying rent of Rs.1,500/- per month. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 4/2018 at Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti, against Sadashiva and two others seeking decree of injunction not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. Along with the suit he had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC which was allowed and the defendants were

¶27

¶28

restrained from interfering with the suit

¶29

schedule property.

¶30

It is alleged that when the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate was in the office on 15.03.2019, the defendants in O.S. No. 4/2018 entered the office and beaten the petitioner with hands and also scolded with filthy language. He has filed a complaint before the Banahatti Police, which is registered in Crime No. 29/2019.

¶31

The petitioner apprehends threat to his life and he is facing lot of difficulties in his everyday activities. Therefore, he has made a representation dated 02.05.2019 to the respondents 2 to 5 seeking Police protection.

¶32

The learned AGA appearing for the respondents on instructions submits that there is no threat to his life as contended by the

¶33

¶34

petitioner which warrants police protection. Further he submits that the respondents have filed memo dated 12.06.2019 producing the Government Order dated 21.08.2012 indicating that, if a person requires service of Police for his/ her protection, he / she should pay the charges indicated in the Government Order and avail the services of the Police personnel. He has submitted that, if the petitioner is agreeable to pay the charges as per the Government Order, the respondents would consider his

¶35

representation.

¶36

The petitioner has also filed memo dated 17.06.2019 stating that he is ready to make the requisite payment towards the services of Police personnel as per the Government Order dated 21.08.2012.

¶37

¶38

In the facts of the present case and taking note of the memo filed by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 02.05.2019 submitted by

¶39

the petitioner in the light of the Government Order dated 21.08.2012 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today. Writ Petition is

¶40

accordingly disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

bvv

Shri Harshavardhan S/O Ramachanra Patwardhan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Harshavardhan S/O Ramachanra Patwardhan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Super Star Recreation Club Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sri.Venkatesh Arjunrao Hishobkar, Vs Sri.Rohan Chandrakant Chougule

Babu S/O Hasan Kwarmaddi Vs Anita W/O Babu Kwamaddi

Sri.Rajendra S/O Venkasppa Nyamagoudar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mallappa S/O Revuba Ghorpade Vs Shri Mirasab Hasansab Mulla

Madivalayya S/O. Basayya Hiremath Vs the Managaging Director