(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning
in Writ Petition No.25313/2025 (GM-POLICE). Respondent Nos.5
13.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4. The said notice reads as
The Hon'ble Court has Ordered that proper
steps shall be taken to see that any type of animal
sacrifice and non-veg consumption does not take
place in and around 200 mts of Sri
Honneshwaraswamy Temple. So, the Order passed
by the Hon'ble Court shall be compulsorily obeyed. In
case there is any violation of the High Court Order,
suitable action shall be initiated against you. A Copy
of the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is
enclosed herewith."
NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB
HC-KAR
2. Concededly, the said notice is ex facie erroneous as this
Court had not issued any directions to prohibit animal sacrifice or
consumption of non-vegetarian food items within 200 meters of the
temple in question. Writ Petition No.18124/2023, which was
preferred by the appellant was disposed of by the learned Single
Judge by an order dated 05.06.2024 directing the concerned
authorities to take necessary steps/actions pursuant to the
representations dated 27.06.2023 in accordance with law within a
period of six weeks from that date. Thus, the concerned authorities
were required to examine the representations made by the
appellant and take an informed decision. However, the Police
Notice dated 13.07.2024 (which is impugned in Writ Petition
No.25313/2025) has been issued citing specific prohibitory
directions issued by this Court, which were never issued.
3. Insofar as sacrifices of animals are concerned, it is
contended on behalf of the State that all sacrifices are prohibited
under the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959.
However, insofar as the consumption of non-vegetarian items
within 200 metres of the temple in question is concerned, the
learned Single Judge had noted that the said issue was not
NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB
HC-KAR
covered by the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act,
1959 or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had observed that if any
restriction is to be imposed, the same is required to be based on
local practices.
4. It was also contented on behalf of the State that the
impugned notice (as set out above) would be withdrawn.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had taken the said
submission on record and disposed of the writ petition.
5. The appellant is aggrieved as his application for being
impleaded in the writ petition was not considered. The appellant
claims that it is at his instance that the impugned notice was issued
as he was the writ petitioner in WP No.18124/2023, which was
disposed of by an order dated 05.06.2024 directing the concerned
authorities to consider his representations. He submits that he had
produced several documents on record which would have been
relevant for adjudication of the writ petition.
6. It is not necessary to examine the appellant's claims as the
petition has been disposed of for the reason that the impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:45182-DB
HC-KAR
notice was erroneous. We find no infirmity with the impugned order.
It is ex facie clear that the police notice which was impugned in the
writ petition was erroneous for the reasons as it directed
compliance of certain directions which were not issued by this
Court. We also note that the learned Single Judge has not made
any observations to the prejudice of the appellant or his case. On
the contrary, the Court had directed that the concerned authorities
should take an informed decision.
7. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
