Sri Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 10.02.2025 AS PER ANNX-A AND TO DELETE HIS NAME FROM THE REGISTER OF ROWDIES.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on part of respondent No.2 in not deciding petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2025, wherein under the said representation addressed to respondent No.2, petitioner is seeking deletion of his name from the register of rowdies.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents.

¶26

At the outset, the learned Additional

¶27

Government Advocate sought time to file statement of objections. This Court is not inclined to accede to the said request. The present writ petition is one seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus complaining of inaction on the part of the competent authority. In such cases, where the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15779 WP No. 30689 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

grievance is limited to non-consideration of a representation, the State cannot be permitted to protract the proceedings by filing statement of objections and contesting the matter on merits. The scope of adjudication in the present petition being narrow, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed to examine whether a direction is required to be issued to the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation.

¶31

The petitioner asserts that his name has been continued in the rowdy register illegally and in contravention of the settled principles of law governing such inclusion. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has submitted a detailed representation dated 10.02.2025, which is produced at Annexure-A, seeking deletion of his name from the rowdy register. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of the said representation, respondent No.2 has failed to consider and dispose of the same within a reasonable time.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:15779 WP No. 30689 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

On perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner’s name came to be entered in the rowdy register for the first time about four to five years ago. The maintenance of rowdy registers and continuation of names therein cannot be mechanical or indefinite. The Police Manual contemplates periodical review of such entries. Further, this Court, in B.S. Prakash vs. State of

¶36

Karnataka and others, has laid down guidelines governing inclusion and retention of names in the rowdy register, emphasizing the requirement of periodic

¶37

assessment based on current conduct and necessity.

¶38

In the present case, despite a specific

¶39

representation seeking deletion of his name, respondent No.2 has not taken any decision. Such inaction on the part of the authority, in the face of a statutory and administrative obligation to periodically review and consider representations, gives rise to a cause of action for

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15779 WP No. 30689 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

issuance of a writ of mandamus. The petitioner has, therefore, demonstrated a legal right to seek consideration of his representation, coupled with a corresponding duty cast upon the respondent-authority.

¶43

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed by issuing a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and in

¶44

the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶47

(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 10.02.2025, produced at Annexure-A, seeking deletion of his name from the rowdy register.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:15779 WP No. 30689 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(iii) While considering the said representation, respondent No.2 shall strictly adhere to the guidelines and principles laid down by this Court in B.S. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka and others, and shall also keep in view the requirement of periodic review as contemplated under the Police Manual.

¶52

(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶53

(v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, and all contentions are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶54

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶55

PRS

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri Ramanji v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramanji v. 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

Sri. Nagaraj Vs the General Manager

Sri P v Laxmisagar Vs City Municipal Council

Smt. Shakuntala K v Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri. K. Satish Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Thopinathimmappa Kalyana Mandira Seva Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Jayaraj Bernard Vs State of Karnataka