Disposed

Sri v. Nagaraj v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2021WP/11269/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking removal from the rowdy list. Upholding the statutory procedure under the Karnataka Police Manual, the Court granted four weeks' time to the petitioners to file an application before the Superintendent of Police, to be decided by a speaking order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Granted four weeks' time to file an application with the Superintendent of Police for removal from the rowdy list.

Sri v Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11269 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . SRI V NAGARAJ S/O SRI VARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. U 7, II MAIN ROAD II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE - 560 021

¶9

2 . SRI GANDHI M S/O SRI V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO U 7, II MAIN ROAD II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMPURAM

¶10

BANGALORE - 560021

¶11

3 . SRI SHASTRY

¶12

S/O SRI V NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO U 7, II MAIN ROAD II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMPURAM

¶13

BANGALORE - 560 021 …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SHRI N SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND :

¶17

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY

¶20

2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶21

3 . THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SRIRAMPURAM POLICE STATION SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE -560001 ...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE ROWDY LIST.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard Shri N.Sriram Reddy, learned advocate for petitioners and Shri M.Vinod Kumar, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶27

Petitioners' grievance is that their name has been wrongly entered in the rowdy list. Shri Vinod Kumar submitted that a procedure has been laid down by the State Government

¶28

¶29

vide Order No.1059 of Karnataka Police Manual, authorising the Deputy Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police of concerned District to consider such grievance and to pass appropriate orders either to continue or to remove the name in the rowdy list. He further submitted that, if an application is filed by the petitioners, the appropriate authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police shall consider the same and pass orders.

¶30

Learned Advocate for petitioners is satisfied with the submission of learned AGA and seeks four weeks' time to file an application.

¶31

4 In view of the above submissions, this petition is disposed of . If petitioners file an application before the appropriate authority, namely Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru, within four weeks from today, the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Yn.

Sri v. Nagaraj v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Nagaraj v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri M P Niranjan Vs State of Karnatak a

V S Dhanaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash K Vs Authorised Officer

Mrs Lona Saritha Dsouza Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Rizwan Pasha Vs Hajee Sir Ismail Sait Mosque Wakf

Satish Kumar Vs the Union of India