Sri M T Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:20167 WP No. 20305 of 2021

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20305 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI M.T. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS PUNITH HOTEL COMPLEX BENGALURU MYSURU ROAD MANDYA - 571 401.

¶8

SRI DHANANJAYA M.K S/O M.T. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PUNITH HOTEL COMPLEX BENGALURU MYSURU ROAD MANDYA - 571 401.

¶9

&PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SUNIL K.N, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SRI C.P. NAVEEN FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TURUVEKERE POLICE STATION TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:20167 WP No. 20305 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶19

&RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY A COMPENSATION OF RS.2.00 LAKHS EACH TO THE PETITIONERS JOINTLY AND SEVERELY BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DTD.14.7.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶26

reliefs:-

¶27

"1) To direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs each to the petitioners, jointly and severely by considering the representation dated 14.07.2019, vide Annexure-Z;

¶28

2) Grant such other relief/reliefs as deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶29

The facts of the case are that, first petitioner is the

¶30

owner of a Hotel Complex. In view of the acute shortage of

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20167 WP No. 20305 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

parking space in the KSRTC bus stand, the petitioners have opened a pay and parking utility in the open space behind the hotel complex from the year 2000. The public were utilising the said parking lot for parking the two wheelers. As and when the vehicle is parked, token is issued to the person, who has parked the vehicle, showing the vehicle number, date and time of parking and the person who has parked the vehicle while taking back the vehicle, will pay the stipulated parking fee.

¶34

On 11.06.2008, one person came and parked TVS Excel two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EK-8939 at about 03.00 p.m. but thereafter, nobody came to retrieve the vehicle.

¶35

In the month of September, 2008, a person claiming to be a police constable attached to Arakere Police Station, however, not being in the uniform, had come and informed that the vehicle is a stolen vehicle and he would seize it and the second petitioner had informed him that it has been parked by somebody and parking charges is upto Rs.1,000/- and after paying the parking charges, vehicle may be taken. There was a discussion and thereafter, the said person went away and after sometime, he came along with five police constables, one of

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:20167 WP No. 20305 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

them carrying a rifle in jeep and by using force, handcuffed the second petitioner and dumped him into the police jeep. At that time, one M.S. Anil Kumar, M.K. Kempaiyya, G. C. Krishna, Gopinath, Ravikumar, who were acquainted with the petitioner, requested the police and wanted to know why they have handcuffed the petitioner and taken him away in the police vehicle. On 22.10.2008, a person claiming himself to be Gopinath and the owner of the said two wheeler approached the second petitioner, who was looking after the parking lot and enquired from him as to what would be the parking charges that has been accrued and payable. He was informed that an amount of Rs.1,200/- has to be paid and after ascertaining the same, the said person went away.

¶40

The second petitioner was taken to Mandya West Police Station and after seizing the mobile phone of the second petitioner, he was kept in a locked room. The first petitioner after coming to know of this incident, went to Mandya West Police Station and wanted to see his son and talk with him. However, the police personnel did not permit the first petitioner to talk with the second petitioner and told that he must bring

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:20167 WP No. 20305 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the TVS two wheeler otherwise the charge sheet will be filed in

¶45

the Court stating that the second petitioner has stolen the vehicle and parked the same in the parking lot. In view of the threat of prosecution, the first petitioner brought TVS two wheeler to Mandya Police Station and delivered it to the police personnel and thereafter, the second petitioner was released.

¶46

Thereafter on 24.10.2008, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the Sub-Inspector of Police narrating the entire incident and to take necessary action against the concerned for illegal detention and handcuffing of the second petitioner in the police station and also for recovery of parking charges of Rs.1,200/-. It is the grievance of the petitioner that they have given representation to first respondent/Home Secretary and the said representation is not considered till date.

¶47

This writ petition is filed in the year 2021. From the year 2021, the writ petition is pending before this Court. In the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 14.07.2019 in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:-

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:20167 WP No. 20305 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 14.07.2019 in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

(ii) All pending I.As, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶54

Sd/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶55

DN

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri M T Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M T Krishnappa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. D. Sanna Durgappa Vs Secretary

V v Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. S Shobha Vs the Authorised Officer

M/S. Krishten Machine Links Private Limited Vs M/S. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Mrs. Srilakshmi Narayanaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Aslam Trading Company Vs Canara Bank