Karnataka High Court

Pandu S/O Maruteppa Halgeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974
                                                             WP No. 107938 of 2025


                       HC-KAR


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                                DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                 BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 107938 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
                      BETWEEN:

                      PANDU S/O. MARUTEPPA HALIGERI,
                      AGED: 44 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
                      R/O: GINIGERI VILLAGE, KOPPAL TALUK,
                      DIST. KOPPAL - 583 228.
                                                                        ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SMT. RANJITA G. ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                           HOME DEPT., VIDHAN SOUDHA,
                           DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001

                      2.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                           KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 231.

                      3.   THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                           KOPPAL - 583 231.

Digitally signed by   4.   THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
RAKESH S
HARIHAR                    KOPPAL RURAL POLICE - 583 231,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,        REP. BY THE HCGP,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad                    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                           DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

                           THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                      OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO
                      ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
                      PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN NO.18/KO.U.VI./2019 DATED
                      08/07/19 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
                      THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO WITHDRAW THE ORDER PASSED IN NO.
                      18/KO.U.VI./2019 DATED 08/07/19 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY THE
                      RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND ETC.,
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974
                                           WP No. 107938 of 2025


 HC-KAR


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

                            ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the

following prayer:

A. Issue writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in no.18/Ko.U.Vi./2019 dated 08/07/19 vide Annexure-A.

B. Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to withdraw the order passed in no. 18/Ko.U.Vi./2019 dated 08/07/19 vide Annexure-A by the Respondent no. 3.

C. Issue any such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Smt.Ranjita G.Alagawadi,

appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.T.Hanumareddy,

appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in Crime No.22/2018

for several offences, including the offences punishable under the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act').

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974

HC-KAR

4. On 01.07.2019, on the score that a crime had been

registered against the petitioner, the petitioner's name was

drawn in the list of rowdies in the register maintained at the

respondent No.4-Police Station. After investigation, the Police

have filed a charge sheet in the said crime.

5. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question

the action of the third respondent in drawing the name of the

petitioner in the list of rowdies of the fourth respondent-Police

Station. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if

three weeks' time is granted, the petitioner would submit a

representation seeking deletion of his name from the list of

rowdies on the grounds set out therein.

6. The Learned AGA submits that if such a

representation is submitted, the third respondent would pass

necessary orders on the said representation. The representation

shall be submitted within three weeks and its consideration shall

be completed within six weeks from the date of submission of

the representation, bearing in mind the judgment of the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B.S.PRAKASH

VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974

HC-KAR

W.P.No.4504/2021 DISPOSED ON 22.04.2022 and so also in

the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate bench in

W.P.No.14560/2022, disposed on 25.08.2022. The guidelines

laid down in W.P.No.4504/2021 read as follows:

"The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non- consideration of his representation dated 01.10.2020 Annexure-J for deleting the name in the Rowdy Register.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner banks upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No.4504/2021 (GM-POL) between B.S.PRAKASH and STATE Of KARNATAKA & OTHERS and other connected matters disposed off on 22.04.2022, wherein the operative portion reads as under:

"In the above circumstances, all these Writ Petitions are disposed off prescribing the following guidelines for supplementing the existing position of law relating to Rowdy Sheeting & History Sheeting:

"GUIDELINES FOR ROWDY/HISTORY SHEETING:

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.

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.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974

HC-KAR

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.

iv. The jurisdictional Police shall compulsorily once in two years, undertake a periodic review of entries in the Register of Rowdies suo motu, as provided under Clause (2), Order 1057 of the Manual. However, it is open to the aggrieved, to make a representation at any time after one year of registration, seeking deletion of name from the Rowdy Register on the basis of changed circumstances such as rectitude, good conduct, social/community service, etc.

v. The representation for review shall be considered by the jurisdictional Police at the initial level within a period of 30 days, during which necessary inputs may be obtained through the available sources as to merits of the claim. The recommendation shall be sent to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police or the Sub - Divisional Police Officer, within 15 days along with the representation & the material collected thereon. Such recommendation along with the result of consideration of the representation shall be communicated to the individual concerned within next 15 days.

vi. Any individual aggrieved by the rejection of his representation or continuation of his name in the Register may petition to the Police Complaints Authority ordinarily within 30 days. However, no personal hearing shall avail. The petition shall be disposed off by

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974

HC-KAR

recording reasons within an outer limit of 60 days, after considering the material on record or the fresh inputs that may be requisitioned, by the authority.

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

viii. The violation of these guidelines shall constitute a major misconduct and an adverse entry on proof thereof shall be made by the Disciplinary Authority in the Service Register of the erring official after hearing him and a copy thereof shall be marked to the victim of Rowdy Register/History Sheet, without brooking any delay.

ix. Whatever guidelines herein above laid down shall be applicable to the case of History Sheeters as well, mutatis mutandis and subject to the provisions of Karnataka Police Manual, 1965."

2. In several matters this Court has directed time bound consideration of representations of the kind in the light of the said decision supra and therefore similar relief needs to be given to the petitioner as well in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. Nos.932- 933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, wherein it has held that identical litigants before the Court are entitled to identical Interim reliefs unless there are factors militating against the grant.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974

HC-KAR

issues to the 2nd respondent to consider or cause to be considered petitioner's subject representation dated 01.10.2020 as specified in the light of the above decision

It hardly needs to be stated that the rowdy sheeting will have consequences upon the rowdy sheeter individually and cannot cast its shadow on the family members of rowdy sheeter. This needs to be borne in mind by the respondent-police.

All contentions are kept open.

Now, no costs."

The guidelines were directed to be followed in the earlier case as well but it is not even looked into while passing the impugned order, in the subject petition. Therefore, the State / competent authority shall pass necessary orders strictly in consonance with the guidelines that is quoted supra as laid down by the co-ordinate bench and not drive the petitioner yet again to this Court on the ground of non-application of mind.

7. For the aforesaid reason, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The petition stands disposed

(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a

representation seeking deletion of the name from

the list of rowdies within three weeks from today,

if not earlier.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15974

HC-KAR

(iii) In the event it is submitted within six weeks

thereafter, the respondent No.3 shall consider the

same and pass necessary orders in accordance

with law bearing in mind the observations made in

the course of the order.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

RHR/CT-ASC