Dismissed

Shri. Raju S/O Laxman Pachapure v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2021WP/104276/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition seeking police protection/armed guard based on a representation to the Superintendent of Police. The court held the petition was not maintainable under the scheme, as applications must be filed directly before the competent authority to determine the type and measures of protection.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with liberty to approach the competent authority under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Shri. Raju S/O Laxman Pachapure Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.104276/2021 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHRI. RAJU S/O LAXMAN PACHAPURE AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. 13/1330, BEHIND UTTAM TALKIES, JUNA CHANDUR ROAD, DURGAMATHA MANDIR, ICHALKARANJI, TAL. HATAKANAGALA DIST. KOLHAPUR MAHARASTRA STATE 416115.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH R PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME ROOM NO. 38 AND 39 GROUND FLOOR , VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE BHAVAN OLD P B ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-5900016

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPTERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU (ACB) 9

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

OPPOSITE HARSHA ELECTRONICS CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI.SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION/ARMED GUARD TO THE PETITIONER IN CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.09.2021 MARKED AT ANNEXUREK ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri.Santosh B Malagoudar, learned counsel

¶23

accepts notice for respondent No.3.

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶25

Issue a writ of mandamus to respondents to provide police protection/armed guard to the petitioner in consideration of the representation dated 27.09.2021 marked at Annexure-K addressed to 2^nd respondent.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a whistle blower and a witness against a public servant, he having filed complaints against certain

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

corrupt officials. Hence, he had submitted an application/representation dated 27.09.2021 at

¶29

Annexure-K seeking for protection by appointment of an armed guard.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite representation having been submitted to the Superintendent of Police on 27.09.2021, no action has been taken.

¶31

Witness protection is covered under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. In terms of Rule 5 of the said scheme, an application would have to be made before the competent authority seeking for necessary protection, which will have to be processed in terms of Rule 7 thereof on which basis type of protection and measures would be ascertained. Hence, the present petition being on the basis of a representation made to the Superintendent of Police would not be maintainable.

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

Liberty is however reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The authority shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and as per the said scheme, within 15 days of receipt of the said application.

¶34

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Shri. Raju S/O Laxman Pachapure v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Raju S/O Laxman Pachapure v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S K K Farms Vs State Bank of India

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaling S/O Balappa Patil, Vs Guruling S/O Basappa Vijaynagar

Hemalata W/O Pundalik Rasalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ismailsab Khadarsab Gabbur Vs Hubli-Dharwad Municipal

Sri. Bheemappa S/O Siddappa Naik, Vs the Director