Allowed

Dr K N Venkatesh B.E(Civil) Llm v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/32880/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's entry into the Rowdy Register. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 17.03.2014 and reserved liberty for respondents to follow coordinate bench guidelines for future entries.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 17.03.2014 directing the petitioner's entry into the Rowdy Register is quashed. Liberty is reserved for respondents to follow guidelines for future entri

Dr K N Venkatesh B.E(Civil) Llm Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25026 WP No. 32880 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32880 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR K N VENKATESH B.E(CIVIL) LL.M. S/O K.C.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 3-B, NO. 188, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DR K N VENKATESH., (PARTY-IN-PERSON))

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION 'D' CROSS, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶12

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

¶13

MR. SIDDARAJU FORMER SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION DODDABALLAPUR TALUK PRESENTLY WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR O/O SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶14

MR.SHIVA REDDY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DODDABALLAPUR CIRCLE PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE COMMANDANT, O/O DIRECTOR

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25026 WP No. 32880 of 2016

¶16

GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶18

V SRIDHAR DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RETD) TUDA LAYOUT, SIRA GATE TUMKUR CITY-572 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 & R4; R2, R3 AND R5 UNSERVED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNEKD ORDER PASSED BY R-5 ON 17.03.2014 DIRECTING THE R-2 TO OPEN A ROWDY SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION OF DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND WHICH IS BEING ENFORCED BY R-1 TO 4 AGAINST THE PETITIONER, IN DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition challenges the order dated 17.03.2014 passed by respondent No.1, wherein the petitioner's name was entered into the Rowdy Register.

¶25

By an order dated 18.08.2022, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order, directing that the petitioner's name shall not be displayed as a rowdy sheeter on any platform. The petitioner, an advocate, alleges victimization

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25026 WP No. 32880 of 2016

¶27

by respondent/police officials and others, with a complaint filed against him.

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions, states that there are 21 cases registered against the petitioner, justifying his entry in the Rowdy Register.

¶29

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4504/2021, disposed of on 22.04.2022, issued guidelines to be followed before entering an individual's name in the rowdy register. In this case, the petitioner's name was entered without providing him an opportunity to be heard, rendering the action arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶30

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 17.03.2014 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-L is hereby quashed.

¶33

iii) Liberty is reserved for the respondents to follow the guidelines before taking any steps to enter the name of the petitioner in the Register of Rowdies.

¶34

Sd/- JUDGE

¶35

Dr K N Venkatesh B.E(Civil) Llm v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr K N Venkatesh B.E(Civil) Llm 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 Anand Ginning Factory Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kalabyraweshwara Transport Vs Union of India

Sri. Lohith.L Vs the Commissioner

Smt Renukadevi Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission

Sri Chandrappa Vs the General Manager

Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Special District Magistrate (North)