Sri K Maadesha vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1661 Kant

                          1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

   WRIT PETITION NO.1536 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:

1. SRI K MAADESHA
S/O. M KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO. 917, 2ND CROSS, AREHALLI MAIN ROAD,
RAMACHANDRAPURA, UTTHARAHALLI WARD,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE 560061.

2. MANJUNATH K
S/O. KRISHNAPPA,
R/A NO.40, RAMACHANDRAPURA,
AREHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE 560061.
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SRIKANTH N.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.

2. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.

3. THE DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA STATE POLICE,
CENTRAL OFFICE, NTUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.

4. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
BANGALORE 560001.
                              2

5. THE PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
BANGALORE 560001.

6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA,
BANGALORE 560078.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOK KUMAR, AGA)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.01.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE. A TO A7.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner as aired in the

representations dated 12.01.2022 collectively produced at

Annexures A1 to A7 is that the same have not been

addressed by the second respondent - Police

Commissioner, despite reminders.

2. Learned AGS having accepted notice for the

respondents opposes the writ petition contending that the

prayer sought for is anticipatory in nature and therefore

inadmissible for the Writ Court to grant.

3. Having opposed the writ petition as above, now

the AGA fairly agrees to instruct his clients look into the

grievance of the petitioner as made out in the subject

representations in accordance with law & in a time bound

way. This is appreciable.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off, all contentions having been kept open.

Time for compliance is eight weeks from the date a

copy of this judgment is handed to the second respondent.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv