Disposed

Smt. Almas Unnisa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/7761/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition invoking Articles 226 and 227 seeking mandamus against police to act against specific individuals disturbing peace and to provide police protection. Court examined preliminary submissions before disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on submissions; liberty granted to petitioner to approach competent forums if interference occurs as claimed.

Smt. Almas Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:43998 WP No. 7761 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7761 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ALMAS UNNISA WIFE OF HIDAYATH ULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT WARD NO. 8 TANJAOOR MOHALLA MADDUR ROAD NEAR AKSA MASJID KUNIGAL TOWN – 572 130 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PADMAVATHI B K REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Location: HIGH COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOME KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMAKURU DISTRICT NEAR SREE SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TUMAKURU – 572 102.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:43998 WP No. 7761 of 2023

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNIGAL POLICE STATION KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶17

SRI. ABDUL MUNAF SON OF LATE ABDUL ALEEM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.49 MADEENA MASJID ROAD KOTE BEEDHI, KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶18

SMT. NAYEEMUNNISSA WIFE OF ABDUL MUNAF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.49 MADEENA MASJID ROAD KOTE BEEDHI, KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶19

SRI. ABDUL RAHEEM S/O LATE ABDUL ALEEM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT MADEENA MASJID ROAD, KOTE BEEDHI, KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶20

SMT. TABASSUM WIFE OF LATE AZAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT MADEENA MASJID ROAD KOTE BEEDHI, KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43998 WP No. 7761 of 2023

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NUMBERS 2 AND 3 TO INITIATE STERN / STRINGENT ACTION AGAINST THE CULPRITS / RESPONDENT NUMBERS 4 TO 7 WHO ARE ILLEGALLY TRYING TO DISPOSES OR DISTURB THE PEASE AND TRANQUILITY IN THE LOCALITY.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayers:

¶29

“ i) TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS , in the nature of Order or Direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to initiate stern/stringent action against the culprits/Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 who are illegally trying to disposes or disturb the peace and tranquility in the locality, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

ii) TO, DIRECT , the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to give Police Protection to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

iii) TO, GRANT , any such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

Heard Sri Fayaz Sab, learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner and Sri Manjunath.K, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:43998 WP No. 7761 of 2023

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader was directed

¶37

to secure instructions as to what has become of the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the parties were called and the allegations against whom the petitioner has now made i.e., respondents 4 to 7 herein, have undertaken that they would not interfere with the property of the petitioner.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said submission would suffice for the present and she be reserved liberty, in the event there is any interference with the property, to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora .

¶40

Liberty so sought is granted.

¶41

Petition is disposed on the aforesaid submissions.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

BKP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Smt. Almas Unnisa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Almas Unnisa 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

Chandra Shekar S Vs N Srinivasa

M/S Master Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Jai Hanuman Traders Vs M/S Canara Bank

Smt Kalavathi Vs Karnataka Gramin Bank

Mr. Ravikumar H Vs M/S the Bhavasara Kshyatriya Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association Vs the Union of India