Sri Harish Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE - I, BEARING NO. PAPS/CC/390/2025 DATED 24-122025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AGAINST THE 1^ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (B) ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET-ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE - I, BEARING NO. PAPS/CC/389/2025 DATED 24-122025 VIDE ANNEXURE B AGAINST THE 2^ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are served with a notice by the second respondent [ the Police Inspector, Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru ] to show cause [ within three days ] why their names must not be entered in the Register of 'Rowdies' [ the Register ]. The Police Inspector, in issuing this notice, has observed that Crime No. 286/2025 is registered alleging that the petitioners have been offering properties to purchasers without title and that the aggrieved are being intimidated not to file complaints.

¶36

Sri Vijaya Kumar R, the learned counsel

¶37

who appears for the petitioners, submits the following.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

[a] The petitioners are partners of the Firm, M/s. D K Builders and Developers, and that this firm comprises family members, including lady members.

¶42

[b] The first petitioner has concluded certain transactions along with another who has joined him in filing a civil suit in O.S. No.122/2025 for permanent injunction, and the civil Court has granted ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession.

¶43

[c] A defendant in the suit has reported the First Information resulting in Crime No.286/2025, but the petitioners have been enlarged on bail on terms.

¶44

Sri Vijaya Kumar R submits that the afore

¶45

circumstances demonstrate that the notice is issued by the Police Inspector only to intimidate the

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

petitioners notwithstanding a civil dispute; and the learned counsel, while relying upon the guidelines issued by this Court in the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.4504/2021 and connected matters¹ , asserts that the entire process of entering the name of a person in the Register , including from the stage of issuance of a proposal notice must be in a ' sealed cover' . Sri B Ravindranath, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the afore.

¶50

This Court's guidelines in the Order dated 22.04.2022, which are material for the present purposes, read as under:

¶51

"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.

¶52

1 These petitions are disposed of by the order dated 22.04.2022

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶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

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.

¶58

iv xxxx xxxx xxxx v xxxx xxxx xxxx vi xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶59

vii. The entire process of Rowdy/History Sheeting from the stage of issuance of

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

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."

¶64

It cannot be disputed that, first, there

¶65

must be an effort to collect and collate information even before a proposal notice is issued, and that when proposal notice is issued, the concerned must be extended with an opportunity [ though not a personal hearing ] to show cause against the proposal. Significantly, the Superintendent of Police [ or the SubDivisional Senior Police Officer of the same rank ] must accord approval for entering the name in the Register

¶66

only on an objective assessment of all the circumstances and after recording reasons. The impugned notice cannot be sustained because it does not indicate that the Police Inspector has made any efforts to collect or collate information before issuing

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the impugned notice, which is not even styled as a ' proposal notice '.

¶71

6. Therefore, this Court must interfere, and

¶72

this Court is of the view that the interference must be to reserve liberty to the petitioners to file all documents with the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Senior Police Officer calling upon such officer to consider the material and record reason if the opinion is that the petitioner’s name must be in the Register of Rowdies . When the Senior Officer is thus seized of the matter pursuant to this Court's order, the Police Inspector shall not proceed further based on the impugned notice. As such, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

[a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file all documents to show cause against the proposal to enter their names in the Register of Rowdies .

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:6116 WP No. 1002 of 2026

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

[b] The petitioners shall be at liberty to file the documents along with a certified copy of this order within a week from the date of receipt thereof.

¶79

[c] The jurisdictional Sub-Divisional

¶80

Senior Police Officer shall consider the documents by a reasoned order before proceeding further and the Police Inspector is restrained from acting pursuant to the impugned notice until consideration as

¶81

aforementioned.

¶82

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶83

AN/-

Sri Harish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Anjandevi

Smt Bhuvana N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandraprakash.N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Afreen Khanum Vs State of Karnataka

Aslam Pasha Vs State of Karnataka