Quashed

Anand S/O. Ira Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2020WP/102042/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition filed by a businessman challenging a police notice dated 5.1.2014 under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which sought his disclosure of movable and immovable assets. The Court held the notice was liable to be quashed insofar as it directed asset disclosure, due to lack of legal provision for such a requirement, while leaving the rest of the notice intact.

What did the court decide?

The portion of the notice dated 5.1.2014 directing the petitioner to disclose/declare his movable and immovable assets is quashed. In all other respects, the notice remains intact.

Anand S/O. Ira Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.102042/2014 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. ANAND S/O IRA NAIK AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O BLOCK NO.1, JOG FALLS ROAD, HOSUR, SIDDAPUR, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA, PIN-581355.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARWAR DISTRICT, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR.

¶13

THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION, SIDDAPUR, DIST:UTTARA KANNADA, PIN-581355.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 5.1.2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN AND PROHIBIT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 HEREIN IN ISSUING THE NOTICE AS AGAINST THE

¶17

¶18

PETITIONER HEREIN IN RESPECT OF ASCERTAINING THE BUSINESS AND TRADE ACTIVITIES AND ITS INCOME AND DOCUMENTS, AS IMPERMISSIBLE TO THEM.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

¶22

226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Notice dated 5.1.2014 bearing No.20/2014 vide Annexure-G issued by the respondent No.3.

¶23

The petitioner claims that he is carrying on business in the co-operative sector, financial sector and other services along with agriculture. He is also running Sri. Vinayaka Finance Corporation. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the said firm. He

¶24

is an income tax assessee and he is paying income tax regularly. To that effect, he has placed on record Annexure-C, Income Tax Return form for the year 2013-14.

¶25

¶26

The respondent-Police had registered a case against the petitioner under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the offence of gambling. In the said offence, after trial, the petitioner was acquitted. In another case registered against the petitioner under Section 78(3) of the Act, the petitioner had challenged the same before this Court in Crl.P. No.2647/2003. This Court by order dated 21.01.2004 quashed the said offence registered against the petitioner under CC No.102/2003.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 5.1.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-G, which reads as under:

¶28

£ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï

¶29

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ¨Á»gÀ ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¹ ¥sÉå£Á£ïì ºÁUÀÆ ¹ªÉÄAmï ªÁå¥ÁgÀ C®èzÉÃ zÉÆqÀØ CAvÀ¹Û£À PÁA¥ÉèPÀìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄwÛj CAvÁ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ PÁgÀªÁgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ F §UÉÎ PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä eÁÕ¥À£À ¤ÃrzÀÝjAzÀ, PÁgÀt vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ F £ÉÆnÃ¸ï v À ®Ä¦zÀ

¶30

¶31

PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆA¢zÀ D¹Û-¥Á¹ÛUÀ¼À §UÉÎ zÁR¯Áw ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ºÁdgÀ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶32

In the above stated notice, the petitioner was

¶33

asked to appear before the respondent-Police for investigation alleging that the petitioner is carrying on illegal activities in finance and he also owns multistoried complex. In the said notice, the petitioner was also asked to disclose the movable and immovable assets owned by him with supporting documents. The said notice is challenged on the ground that the respondent-Police have no jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to disclose his movable and immovable properties which would be violative of his fundamental right.

¶34

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

¶35

would submit that the State has filed objections and submits that as the police have registered the cases against the petitioner in Crime No.267/1998 and 244/2002, the respondents have issued the notice

¶36

¶37

asking the petitioner to appear for investigation. It is

¶38

also submitted that the petitioner involved in matka and gambling. Hence, justifies the issuance of the notice at Annexure-G dated 5.1.2014.

¶39

A careful perusal of the notice dated 5.1.2014 would disclose that the police in the guise of calling the petitioner for investigation for alleged illegal activities in finance and business have asked him to disclose his movable and immovable assets with supporting documents. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents is not in a position to point out or trace out any of the provision under which the respondent-Police have issued such notice asking the petitioner to disclose his movable and immovable assets. As such, it is not

¶40

open for the respondents to direct the petitioner to disclose his movable and immovable assets. Hence, I am of the view that the notice at Annexure-G dated 5.1.2014 is liable to be quashed insofar as it directs the petitioner to disclose/declare his movable and

¶41

¶42

immovable assets is concerned. Accordingly, that portion of the notice is quashed. In all other respects, notice would remain intact.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition stands

¶44

disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

JTR

Anand S/O. Ira Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand S/O. Ira Naik 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

Santosh Bhaurao Bhekane Vs Ishwar Chudappa Modagekar

Sri. Praveen Irappa Baligar @ Kasar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Kadagouda Shivalingappa Patil Vs Smt.Annavva W/O Shivalingappa Patil

Dr.K.C. Tarachand S/O K.N. Chokla Naik Vs the Vice Chancellor

Smt.Mallamma W/O Mallayya Karadannavar @ Kadatal Vs Sri.Mahadevayya S/O Basayya Karadannavar @ Kadatal

U.Panchaksharapp S/O Late U. Mudimallappa Vs Smt.M.Gayatramma W/O Late M.S. Palakshappa