Dismissed

Smt. Rukkamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022RP/417/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a review petition, clarifying that the impugned order directed the police to consider the writ petitioners' representation for their life and limb, and noted the pending civil dispute requires consideration of both sides' representations.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed off clarifying that representations of both parties in a civil dispute are to be considered for police protection.

Smt. Rukkamma Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO.417 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RUKKAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

SMT. VANAJAKSHI D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. RAVINDRA K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. JAYARAM K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE JAGADISH K, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶13

ALL PETITIONERS RESIDING AT NO.297, DODDAMANE KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560076.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK FOR SRI.ALOKE MADAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

¶18

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME MINISTRY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶19

2 . COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH EAST), NO.6(9/D), 1ST CROSS, 20TH MAIN, OPP KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, 8TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095.

¶21

4 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ELECTRONIC SUB DIVISION, NO.73, 4TH CROSS ROAD, NEELADRI INVESTMENT LAYOUT, ELECTRONICS CITY PHASE-1, BANGALORE-560100.

¶22

5 . CIRCLE INSPECTOR HULIMAVU, CAVE TEMPLE ROAD, MAIN BUS STOP PAI LAYOUT, HULIMAVU, BANGALORE-560076.

¶23

6 . POLICE SUB INSPECTOR HULIMAVU, CAVE TEMPLE ROAD, MAIN BUS STOP PAI LAYOUT, HULIMAVU, BANGALORE-560076.

¶24

7 . M/S LAKSHMI RAMANA PETRO SERVICES NO.SY NO.135/2, OPPOSITE ELEMENTS MALL, TANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560045, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR.A. BALAJI RAO, S/O DR.A. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)

¶25

¶26

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO A) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2075/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Review Petition is presented seeking recall of the judgment in question which only had directed the consideration of Writ Petitioners’ representation for police protection. It was a case of “order to make order” on the representation, all contentions having been kept open.

¶30

It hardly needs to be stated that for such a petition, there was no need for impleading others much less the Review Petitioners. However, this having been said there is another aspect; it is submitted by the counsel for Review Petitioners that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and therefore, the police while considering the representation of writ petitioners for protection, shall consider representation to be made by the Review Petitioners as well. There is some sense in this. That course would do justice to both the rival parties

¶31

¶32

With these observations, Review Petition is disposed off, clarifying that the representation of the Writ Petitioners is confined only to their life, liberty & limb. Review Petitioners can also make a representation counter representation to the police. Both the representations shall be considered together in accordance with law.

¶33

It is open to the respondent – police to solicit any information/documents from the side of the writ petitioners as well as review petitioners for due adjudications of their representations.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

cbc

Smt. Rukkamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukkamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Muniraju M Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sobha Limited Vs the Initiating Officer

Sri K K Basavarajappa Vs State of Karnataka

K. Prabhakar Dixit Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kodamanthaya Daivasthana Yekkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Jyothi Bala R Salot Vs the State of Karnataka