Allowed

Sri. M. Ganesh Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2024WP/12669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a police endorsement that rejected a request to remove the petitioner's name from a rowdy list. The court found the endorsement unsustainable as the State admitted no criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petition was allowed, the endorsement quashed, and the DC of Police directed to consider deletion.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 15.09.2022 is quashed. The Deputy Commissioner of Police is directed to pass orders deleting the petitioner's name within four weeks.

Sri. M. Ganesh Reddy Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12669 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M. GANESH REDDY S/O. SRI.LATE.D.MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. NO.28, GANESHA NILAYA, 13TH MAIN, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560093.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EAST DIVISION, ULSOOR MAIN ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560008.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ULSOOR MAIN ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560008.

¶20

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BYAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560093

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DTD 15.09.2022 BEARING NO. T2/PS/PETITION/155 AND 156/2022 THAT PASSED BY THE R- 5 HEREIN A COPY OF THE SAID ENDORSEMENT /ORDER IS HEREWITH SUBMITTED AS ANNX-A; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO DELETE/REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FORM THE ROWDY LIST MAINTAINED IN THE R-5 POLICE STATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶26

prayer:

¶27

"1. ISSUE a writ of Certiorari to quash the Endorsement/Order dated 15/09/2022 bearing No.T2/PS/Petition/155 & 156/2022 that passed by the Respondent No.5 herein. A copy of the said Endorsement/Order is herewith submitted as Annexures-A ;

¶28

2. and issue a writ of Mandamus there by directing the Respondents to delete/remove

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶31

the name of the Petitioner from the rowdy list maintained in the Respondent No.5 police station, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

3. Any other relief which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity."

¶33

The prayer of the petitioner is for quashment of an order dated 15.09.2022 and a consequential direction to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of rowdies drawn before the fifth respondent - Police Station.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sumanth L.

¶35

Bharadwaj, appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Sri.Manjunath K., appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.12858/2021 seeking a direction at the hands of this

¶37

Court for removal of his name from the list of rowdies. The said writ petition comes to be disposed by an order dated 16.08.2021, which reads as follows:

¶38

" 3. Shri Vinod Kumar submitted that a procedure has been laid down by the State Government vide Order No.1059 of Karnataka Police Manual, authorizing the Deputy Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶41

Police of concerned District to consider such grievance and to pass appropriate orders either to continue or to remove the name in the rowdy list. He submitted that, if an application is filed by the petitioner, the appropriate authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police shall consider the same and pass orders.

¶42

4. Learned Advocate for petitioner seeks two weeks' time to file an application.

¶43

5. In view of the above submissions, this petition is disposed of. If petitioner files an application before the appropriate Authority, namely Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru, within four weeks from today, the concerned Authority shall consider the same and pass a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶44

No costs. "

¶45

The petitioner represents before the Deputy

¶46

Commissioner of Police seeking removal of his name from the list of rowdies. The representation results in an endorsement on 04.10.2021. The endorsement reads as follows:

¶47

“ "»A§gºÀ "À

¶48

DzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ WÀ£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ r.¹.¦ ¥ÀÆªÀð gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÉÊAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀºÀ½î ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ïoÁuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉj¢gÀÄªÀ gËr ²Ãlgï C£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¤ªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉÕÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj gËr ²Ãlgï C£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶51

DzÁgÀgÀ»vÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ gËr ²Ãlgï ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛ.”

¶52

The petitioner along with other calls the said endorsement in question before this Court in W.P.No.23902/2021. All the petitions were taken up together

¶53

and the co-ordinate Bench disposed the same in terms of the judgment dated 22.04.2022 laying down certain guidelines for inclusion and removal of the names of the persons from the list of rowdies in the Police station. The guidelines read as follows:

¶54

GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶59

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 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.

¶60

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.57

¶61

v. The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of30 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.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶64

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

¶65

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.

¶66

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.

¶67

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."

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶70

The petitioner again represented on 11.08.2022 to

¶71

remove his name from the list of rowdies following the guidelines so laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The result of the representation is the impugned endorsement. The impugned endorsement reads as follows:

¶72

“ "»A§gºÀ À"

¶73

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ WÀ£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ qÀ§Æèöå.¦.£ÀA.12858/2021 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÀ§Æèöå.¦.£ÀA.23902/2021 ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ, ¥ÀÆªÀð «¨sÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ°è, ¨ÉÊAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀºÀ½î ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉgÉzÀÄ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¤ªÀÄä gËr ºÁ¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj, ¤ÃªÀÅ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ PÀÈvÀåUÀ¼À°è ¨ÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀiï «gÀÄzÀÝ gËr ºÁ¼ÉAiÀÄ£Àß vÉgÉzÀÄ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ F «µÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄ°è §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ ¥ÀÄ£À: ¤ÃªÀÅ 03 ¸ÀAeÉÕÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è E£ÀÆß MAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ UÀÄ¥ÀÛ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄAvÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ¥ÀzÉÃ¥ÀzÉÃ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ F §UÉÎ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ¨sÀAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÉ§gÉzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ gËr ºÁ¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ «µÀAiÀÄªÀÅ DzsÁgÀgÀ»vÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, DzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä gËr ºÁ¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¤ªÀÄä Cfð «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶74

The endorsement depicts that three cases against

¶75

the petitioner are pending consideration before the concerned Courts and certain investigation reveals that the petitioner is in the habit of threatening others. The same endorsement was

¶76

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶78

issued earlier except the statement that there are three cases pending.

¶79

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not

¶80

even a single case is pending against the petitioner and he has been acquitted in all the cases.

¶81

The State has filed its objections to the claim of the petitioner, wherein it is admitted that there are no cases pending against the petitioner. The admission would undoubtedly become contrary to the endorsement so issued declining the prayer of the petitioner to remove the name from the list of rowdies. Therefore, the endorsement on the face of it is unsustainable, as it runs counter to the order passed by this Court (Supra) in the form of guidelines. The petition thus deserves to succeed.

¶82

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶85

ii) The Endorsement dated 15.09.2022 stands quashed.

¶86

10 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:1001 WP No. 12669 of 2023

¶88

iii) The Deputy Commissioner of Police – respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶89

iv) The Deputy Commissioner of Police shall pass orders upon the representations made by the petitioner seeking deletion of his name from the list of rowdies strictly in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order and not again drive the petitioner to this Court on the same score.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. M. Ganesh Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Ganesh Reddy 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

All India Hdpe/Pp Woven Fabric Manufactures Assocation Vs the Secretary

Smt S Deepa Vs the Authorized Officer(Ceo)

Sri B Narayanaswamy Vs Punjab National Bank

Sri Syed Moinuddin Quadri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Raj Thomas Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest

Hasnra Vs the State of Karnataka