Disposed

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka v. the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/105813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, petitioners sought quashing of orders denying permission to hold a dharna. The court held the specific orders for quashing were moot due to the expired date and instead directed the Tahasildar to consider a fresh application for permit to conduct a peaceful protest, noting obedience to guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to make application to Respondent No.3; Respondent No.3 directed to consider it in accordance with law and pass suitable orders.

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14991 WP No. 105813 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105813 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE RTI AND SOCIAL ACTIVISTS FORUM ® KARNATAKA, TQ UNIT, BHATKAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, BY SHRI NAGENDRA S/O. SHANKAR NAIK, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK/AGRICULTURE, R/O. HERUR VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581450.

¶10

MANJANNA

¶11

¶12

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

STATE RTI AND SOCIAL ACTIVISTS FORUM ® KARNATAKA, TQ UNIT, BHATKAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BY SHRI NAGESH S/O. NARAYAN NAIK, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK/AGRICULTURE, R/O. HONNEGADDA VILLAGE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581336.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARWAR, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BHATKAL, SUB-DIVISION, BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14991 WP No. 105813 of 2024

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR AND TALUKA EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THASILDAR, BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581320.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶24

A) ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21/9/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-F BEARING NO.MAG/VI VA-61/24-25, AND ANOTHER ORDER DATED 26/09/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, BEARING NO.MAG/VI VA-61/202425, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, AS THEY ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW;

¶25

B) KINDLY ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCORD PERMISSION TO HOLD DHARNA/PROTEST AS PER ANNEXURE-C, DATED 10/9/2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondents.

¶30

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶31

3. This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are

¶32

the President and Secretary of State RTI and Social Activist

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14991 WP No. 105813 of 2024

¶34

Forum registered in Karnataka. The organization is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioners are engaged in social work and in order to support and help the general public and the downtrodden, who have no knowledge of the official work, are assisting them to get their disputes resolved with their assistance.

¶35

4. According to the petitioners, some of the officials in a particular place of work at Bhatkal town in Taluka Adalitha Soudha are not transferred from Bhatkal town since more than almost ten years due to their influence and they are not working properly at their place. Hence, the petitioners’ organization submitted a memorandum to transfer such persons working in Bhatkal town to different places.

¶36

5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they submitted a memorandum to consider the grievance of the petitioners’ organization, which was refused by the Deputy Commissioner to initiate any action. Hence, the petitioners wanted to hold a Dharna i.e., a peaceful protest day and

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14991 WP No. 105813 of 2024

¶38

night against the State and made an application seeking permission to organize Dharna at Bhatkal town by filing an application at Annexure-C. Though permission was granted for the said period i.e., to conduct Dharna on 10.09.2024, the said period is over and they were not allowed to conduct Dharna.

¶39

6. The short point for consideration now before this Court is seeking permission to hold Dharna in a peaceful manner, from the respondent authorities i.e., the Tahasildar respondent No.3 as the period mentioned earlier has expired and the question of quashing Annexure-F and G would not now survive for consideration because the period sought for is spent itself. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 to consider the representation and accord permission to hold Dharna/protest in a peaceful manner in the place designated by respondent No.1. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14991 WP No. 105813 of 2024

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petitioners are at liberty to make an application specifying their date and time and place to respondent No.3 for conducting Dharna/peaceful protest.

¶43

ii) Respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶44

iii) It is needless to mention that the petitioners will follow the rules and strict guidelines issued by respondent No.3 without causing any inconvenience to the public and also secure all other required permissions from concerned authorities.

¶45

iv) Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶47

MRK CT-MCK

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka v. the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka v. the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar

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. M.Ansar Baig Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Sri Ramesh B.H.T. S/O Basavarajappa Vs Occupier

Doddamardansab Mohamadhaneefsab Nadaf Since Deceased by Lrs Kasimsab S/O Doddamardansab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarvodaya Social Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Yashvant Subbanna Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

Greenwood Internatinoal English Medium Vs State of Karnataka