Disposed

Mr Rakesh Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022WP/21186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Superintendent of Police to consider deleting the petitioner's name from the Rowdy Register. The court relied on earlier judgments establishing guidelines for rowdy registration and applied the principle of treating like cases alike.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to consider deletion of petitioner's name from Rowdy Register and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Mr Rakesh Rai Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 21186 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21186 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RAKESH RAI S/O BALAKRISHNA RAI AGED 37 YEARS R/AT 2-71PA, KUKATDI HOUSE SULIA PADAVU, PADUVANNUR PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 313.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-01.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575001

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574210.

¶15

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574210.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 21186 of 2022

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUTTUR SUBDIVISION/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.111/PSD/CCR/2016 GRANTING PERMISSION TO RESPONDENT NO.4 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE ROWDY REGISTER OF RESPONDENT NO.4 POLICE STATION, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-D b) ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRITS/DIRECTION/ORDERS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE ROWDY REGISTER MAINTAINED BY RESPONDENT NO.4/PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION, REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUTTUR SUBDIVISION/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.111/PSD/CCR/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order

¶24

dated 07.07.2016, by which, the name of the petitioner being entered in the Rowdy Register is not removed despite the representation and he seeks consequential direction to consider his representation for such removal.

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that the issue is identical to what is decided by this Court in W.P.No.16604/2015, disposed on 27.07.2022. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while

¶26

¶27

WP No. 21186 of 2022

¶28

following the order passed in W.P.No.4504/2021 and connected

¶29

matters, disposed on 22.04.2022, has held as follows:

¶30

" The subject matter of this writ petition is to a great extent similar to the one treated by this Court in W.P.No.4504/2021(GM-POLICE) & Connected Matters between SRI B.S.PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off on 22.04.2022 wherein the following Guidelines have been laid down for treating prayers of the kind which reads as under:

¶31

“GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY

¶32

SHEETING:

¶33

i. Before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, the jurisdictional police shall collect and collate the material information concerning him and frame the proposal for registration on that basis.

¶34

ii. A brief proposal notice shall be sent to the individual concerned in a sealed cover with an option to submit his representation within two weeks as to why his name should not be registered as a rowdy. However, there is no need to afford a personal hearing. In exceptional cases notice may be dispensed with for reasons to be recorded in the Register of Rowdies.

¶35

iii. In terms of Clause (5), Order 1059 of the Manual, the Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police Officer shall not accord approval for entering the name of individual concerned to the Register of Rowdies without calling for records and

¶36

¶37

WP No. 21186 of 2022

¶38

objectively considering the same. He shall briefly record his reasons for according the approval and mark a copy thereof to the individual forthwith, with a mention that he may petition the Police Complaints Authority, against the same.

¶39

iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, undertake a periodic review of entries in the Register of Rowdies suo motu, as provided under Clause (2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community service, etc.

¶40

v. The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained through the available sources as to merits of the claim. The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub – Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material collected thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.

¶41

vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his representation or continuation of his name in the Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by recording reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after considering the material on

¶42

¶43

WP No. 21186 of 2022

¶44

record or the fresh inputs that may be requisitioned, by the authority.

¶45

vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the stage of issuance of proposal notice as specified above, up to the issuance of the orders on the petition if any to the Police Complaints Authority, shall be done only in a sealed cover procedure and that nothing therein shall be disclosed nor made available to anyone, except to the aggrieved, nor any Right To Information (RTI) application shall be entertained in this regard. viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall be made by the Disciplinary Authority in the Service Register of the erring official after hearing him and a copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay. ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965.” 2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, it has

¶46

¶47

WP No. 21186 of 2022

¶48

to be extended to similarly circumstanced litigants as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶49

In light of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench which is by itself rendered following the judgment of the Division Bench and the judgment of the very same Bench, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the issue of deletion of the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy Register or otherwise by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law bearing in mind the observation made in the course of this order. Necessary orders to that effect shall be passed by respondent No.2 within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Mr Rakesh Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rakesh Rai 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B S Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mahantesh Traders Vs the Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Mr. P. Anand Vardhan Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chidananda Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Prakash Raj Wodeyar Vs Smtb.R.Uma Devi

Smt Vimala Ramanath Pawar Vs Senior Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre