Disposed

Smt.Shanta @ Kamala W/O.Sri.Kariyappa Karnal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Aug 2021WP/147457/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging permission granted to Anti-Corruption Bureau to apply for attachment of petitioner's property. Court held impugned order merely permits filing of application, does not direct attachment, and is not illegal/arbitrary. Petition disposed of without interference pending actual application before Special District Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; Special District Court directed to consider application if filed by ACB.

Smt.Shanta @ Kamala W/O.Sri.Kariyappa Karnal Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.147457 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. SHANTA @ KAMALA, W/O. SRI. KARIYAPPA KARNAL, AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, RES.NO.H.NO.59, 2^ND CROSS, VISWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ : HUBBALLI, DIST : DHARWAD HUBBALLI – 580 032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYAN G. RASALKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (COMMERCIAL TAXES-2 AND COORDINATION WING), REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (IN CHARGE), ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, NO-25, RACE COURSE ROAD, HIGH GROUND, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,

¶15

¶16

COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD TALUKA, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARNATAKA, VANIJYE THERIGE KARYALAYA, KALIDSA MARG, I MAIN, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.AAYI 03 VATET 2019 DATED 12.11.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (COMMERCIAL TAXES-2 AND COORDINATION WING), BENGALURU, AS PER ‘ANNEXURE K’ SO FAR AS THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED AT SL.NO.2, 3, 7 AND 8 BEING WITHOUT JURISIDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 12.11.2019 passed by respondent No.1 – State of Karnataka, granting permission to the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, ‘ACB’) to apply to the Special District Court to seek attachment of the

¶24

¶25

properties of the petitioner as provided under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance of 1944 (for short, ‘the said Ordinance of 1944’).

¶26

Heard learned for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶27

The material on record indicates that criminal proceedings in ACB Crime No.3/2017 before the Special District & Sessions Court, Dharwad (for short, ‘Special District Court’) are initiated against the petitioner’s husband one Sri. Kariyappa Karnal, for alleged offences under Section 13 (1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said proceedings are pending before the Special District Court even as on today where petitioner’s husband Sri. Kariyappa Karnal, is arrayed as sole accused.

¶28

¶29

During pendency of the said proceedings, Prosecution therein that is the ACB requested the respondent No.1 herein for permission to file an application seeking attachment of the properties standing in the name of the petitioner by invoking Section 3(1) of the said Ordinance of 1944. The said request made by the ACB (Prosecution) to the respondent No.1 – State was acceded to by respondent No.1 by passing the impugned order dated 12.11.2019 permitting the ACB (Prosecution) to file an application before the Special District Court in ACB Crime No.3/2017 instituted against the petitioner’s husband referred to supra. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure – K dated 12.11.2019, petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶30

In addition to reiterating the various

¶31

contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by

¶32

¶33

the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 granting permission to the ACB (Prosecution) and authorizing it to file an application under Section 3(1) of the said Ordinance of 1944, is wholly illegal in as much as no opportunity was granted in favour of the petitioner before the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. Secondly, it is contended that the properties mentioned in the impugned order is the separate and self-acquired properties of the petitioner and the same have no nexus or connection whatsoever with the proceedings in ACB Crime No.3/2017 pending before the Special District Court. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the present petition is premature since impugned order merely

¶35

¶36

authorises the ACB to file appropriate application before the Special District Court in ACB Crime No.3/2017 and once such an application is made by the ACB (Prosecution) in the said proceedings, the Special District Court will consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application and as such, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 merely granting permission in favour of the ACB (Prosecution) to file an application seeking attachment under Section 3(1) of the said Ordinance Act of 1944 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner at this stage and consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to

¶38

the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶39

As rightly contended by the learned HCGP for the respondents, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the respondent No.1 has merely

¶40

¶41

granted permission to the ACB (Prosecution) to file an appropriate application before the Special District Court where ACB Crime No.3/2017 is pending against the husband of the petitioner; it is needless to state that the impugned order cannot be construed or treated or understood as either directing the attachment of the properties of the petitioner or directing the Special District Court to pass an order of attachment against the petitioner in respect of her properties.

¶42

Under these circumstances, in view of the impugned order which merely permits the ACB (Prosecution) to file an appropriate application before the Special District Court and the impugned order not by itself not being an order of attachment, the same cannot be presumed termed as illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 12.11.2019 passed by respondent No.1.

¶47

(ii) It is directed that in the event the ACB (Prosecution) in ACB Crime No.3/2017 files any application seeking attachment of the properties standing in the name of the petitioner, the Special District Court before whom the said ACB Crime No.3/2017 is pending, is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law.

¶48

(iii) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and this order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner to put forth all her defences in ACB Crime No.3/2017 and any application filed therein before the Special District Court.

¶49

SD JUDGE

¶50

Smt.Shanta @ Kamala W/O.Sri.Kariyappa Karnal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shanta @ Kamala W/O.Sri.Kariyappa Karnal 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

Huchappa S/O Yamanappa Jyoti, Vs Smt. Mallavva W/O Rayappa Jyoti

Madhukar S/O Madhavrao Athanikar Vs Smt.Sudha W/O Devshankar Prasad

Ramappa S/O Basappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Hemant S/O Kariyappa Karnal Vs Government of Karnataka

Shri.Manohar S/O.Kariyappa Karnal Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Satyabhama W/O Motiram Bandiwaddar Vs Shri Halappa S/O Kallappa Gopali