Disposed

School Development Committee v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023CRL.RP/1385/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition filed to set aside an order regarding the closure of a fish unit affecting school children. The single judge allowed the petitioners to keep issues open pending a Division Bench public interest litigation, upholding the lower court finding that the Juvenile Justice Board lacked closure powers.

What did the court decide?

Issues raised in the revision petition kept open to be considered in the pending public interest litigation; finding on lack of Board power upheld.

School Development Committee Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.RP No. 1385 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE BALKUDRU, HANGARKATTE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. RAVEENDRA SUVARNA

¶8

STUDENTS OF GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HANGARAKATTE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ITS STUDENT LEADER MASTER AGNESH SINCE A MINOR, REP BY HIS/HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI. GANESH S/O LATE SHEENA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT BANGALORE-01. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THROUGH SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶12

YASHASWINI FISHERIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. B.KESHAVA KUNDAR

¶13

2 - CRL.RP No. 1385 of 2018

¶14

FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BALAKUDRU VILLAGE, BRAHMAVADA, UDUPI TALUK-577201.

¶15

SMT.UMADEVI W/O B.KESHAVA KUNDAR BALAKUDRU, PANDESHWARA VILLAGE, SASTHANA POST, UDUPI TALUK-576101.

¶16

ALSO AT: PROPRIETOR, BEEYALI, KAMLAGADDI, 34 KUDI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶19

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 READ WITH SECTION 102 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2017 AND THEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2017 PASSED BY THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTE (CWC FOR BREVITY), UDUPI, U/S.101 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the petition at length submits that in respect of the grievance of the petitioners, there is already a writ petition pending in public interest before this Court. He therefore, prays that the issues

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 1385 of 2018

¶26

raised in this revision petition may be kept open to be considered in the pending public interest litigation.

¶27

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 though served with the notice have not appeared.

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State submits that a writ petition is pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court concerning the nuisance caused by the fish cutting unit and a fish mill run by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, any order that may be passed in this revision petition would impact the public interest litigation.

¶29

It is seen from the records that on the complaint of the petitioners that the running of the fish cutting unit and the fish mill by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, was causing nuisance and affecting the health of the children, an inspection was conducted on 24.12.2016 by Child Welfare Committee, who reported that the unit was causing nuisance. Based on this report, the Board had passed an order to close down the unit, which was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.34/2017, which

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 1385 of 2018

¶32

was allowed on the ground that the Board did not possess power under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to pass such an order.

¶33

Since the petitioners are already before the Division Bench of this Court in public interest litigation in W.P.No.12005/2020, it is open for them to take advantage of the report submitted by Child Welfare Committee in the pending public interest litigation. However, the finding of the Sessions Court that the Juvenile Justice Board did not have power to pass an order of closure of the fish cutting unit/fish mill is upheld.

¶34

The revision petition stands disposed off on the above terms.

¶35

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed off.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

PMR

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

School Development Committee v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

School Development Committee 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

M/S Ariatex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ganesh Tempo Service

L.N Shivashankar Vs State by Koramangala P.S

Dhananjaya.G Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri.Natarajanayaka Vs Sri.Abdul @ Chand

Smt Chinnama B B Vs Shri Kumara H M

Sri Chandrappa @ Veerappan Vs State of Karnataka