Disposed

Indian Public School v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/4589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for directions to curb tobacco sale near petitioner school under COTPA. Court noted affidavits from authorities stating action taken to remove products and shops. Petitioner satisfied. Petition disposed with liberty for future recurrence.

What did the court decide?

Grievance dismissed as satisfied; petition disposed with liberty to approach Court if illegal acts recur.

Indian Public School Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49301 WP No. 4589 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 4589 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, OFFICE AND SCHOOL PREMISES AT No.6A, OPPOSITE TO LIC OFFICE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 075, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. LOHIT PATIL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI P. FREUD RICHARDSON, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY POLICE-EAST DIVISION, ULSOOR MAIN ROAD, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:49301 WP No. 4589 of 2023

¶18

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE -560 075.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI PAVANKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS, TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTIONS TO CURB THE MENACE CAUSED AROUND THE PETITIONER SCHOOL DUE TO THE SALE AND USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND THEREBY GIVE EFFECT TO THE SECTION OF THE COPTA ACT IN A TIME BOUND MANNER, IN RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER SCHOOL.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri. P. Freud Richardson, learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner, Sri. Spoorthy Hedge N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is regarding the opening of petty shops and selling tobacco products in violation of the provisions of the

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49301 WP No. 4589 of 2023

¶29

Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003.

¶30

This Court directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the Police authorities to file affidavit on action taken. Both the authorities have filed affidavits stating that the appropriate action has been taken by removing the tobacco products from the petty shops. The affidavits further indicate that the steps would be taken to remove the shops, if found unauthorized, in accordance with law.

¶31

4. In response to the said affidavits, learned counsel for

¶32

the petitioner has filed affidavit dated 02.12.2024 wherein, it is stated that the petitioner is satisfied with the action taken by the respondent-authorities. It is further stated that there are no tobacco products sold in the said petty shops.

¶33

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for

¶34

the petitioner, the grievance would not survive for further

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:49301 WP No. 4589 of 2023

¶37

consideration. However, petitioner is reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy if the said illegal acts recur in future.

¶38

It is further observed and provided that the respondent-authorities will and shall continue to monitor that no tobacco products are sold in the shops in question.

¶39

Accordingly, disposed of.

¶40

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶41

VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Indian Public School v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Public School 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

Sri S K Nithyananda Vs Sri. Thushar Girinath

Sri Prashanth Ganapathi Raikar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shantha K. Hiremat Vs the Commissioner

Sri.G.Shashidhar Vs the Commissioner

Nagarajappa Vs Basamma

Sri. M. Anandaiah Vs Public Information Commissioner