Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 800 (KAR)

Adarsh G. K. v. State of Karnataka

2018-07-16

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- "(A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari declaring that Section 20 C of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 by way of amendment made to the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 on 09.08.2012 as per Annexure-C as null and void, which is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 8 SCC Page 1 vide Annexure-C; (B) Quash the Government Order No. HD 166 POSIAA, Bengaluru dated 08.12.2017 as per Annexure 'J' issued by the 1st respondent based on illegal recommendations of the 2nd respondent for appointing the third respondent as member to the Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority." 2. Petitioner claims that he is the General Secretary of Human Rights Defenders Forum, Bangalore and also claims that he is involved in other social service activities throughout the State. He seeks for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure-J) where under, respondent No. 3 came to be appointed as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority (for short 'authority') under the category of Civil Society apart from challenging the virus of Section 20C of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 3. The gist of petitioner's case is that in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and Other V. Union of India and Others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1, Karnataka Police Act, 1963 came to be amended by introducing Section 20C which provides for constitution of State Police Complaints Authority and there was no full fledged State Police Complaints Authority in the State of Karnataka. Hence, complaint came to be lodged by the petitioner before this Court, which was converted into a suo-moto Public Interest Litigation in Writ Petition No. 9106/2013, which came to be disposed of by order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure-E) by recording the statement made by the then learned Additional Government Advocate that State Government would make necessary arrangements for constituting the State Police Complaints Authority. Pursuant to same, an executive order dated 03.12.2010 came to be issued constituting State Police Complaints Authority and thereafter, through ordinance No. 2/2012 amendment was brought and subsequently by Act No. 30/2012 during the operation of the ordinance, State Police Complaints Authority came to be constituted. 4. Pursuant to same, an executive order dated 03.12.2010 came to be issued constituting State Police Complaints Authority and thereafter, through ordinance No. 2/2012 amendment was brought and subsequently by Act No. 30/2012 during the operation of the ordinance, State Police Complaints Authority came to be constituted. 4. On such constitution of the Authority, the petitioner herein came to be appointed as a Member of the Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority by order dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure-B). On re-constitution of the said authority, Dr. H. Sudarshan Ballal came to be appointed to the said authority and term of said Dr. H. Sudarshan Ballal came to an end on 17.06.2017, upon which publicity was given by inviting applications from interested and qualified persons to be appointed to the post of Member of Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority under the category of Civil Society, for which paper publication was also issued on 28.05.2017 and same was published in three leading newspapers i.e., Prajavani, Vijaya Karnataka and Times of India dated 28.05.2017. 5. By order dated 31.08.2017, a Search Committee came to be constituted by the State Government for the purpose of appointment to the Member of the authority under the category of Civil Society. Said Search Committee consisted of three members namely, a retired District and Sessions Judge and two other members representing Karnataka Lokayukta and Karnataka Public Service Commission. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Police Services) was nominated as Member Secretary of the Search Committee as per order dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure-R1). 6. Applications, 30 in numbers, which had been received by the State Government came to be placed before the Search Committee in its meeting held on 20.07.2017, which scrutinized each of the applications and after deliberation it was resolved to call for further applications in its meeting held on 20.09.2017 and pursuant to said resolution, respondent No. 1 issued yet another paper publication dated 23.09.2017 calling for applications from interested applicant for appointment as Member under the Civil Society Category to the Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority. Pursuant to the same, thirteen (13) new applications came to be received. Thus, in all there were 43 applications which had been received by the State Government were all placed before the Search Committee. Pursuant to the same, thirteen (13) new applications came to be received. Thus, in all there were 43 applications which had been received by the State Government were all placed before the Search Committee. Having scrutinized and verified all the applications, in its meeting held on 03.11.2017 said Search Committee recommended a panel of three (3) names to the post for appointment of a Member of the Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority namely, that of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and one Smt. Parimala vide proceedings dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure-R2). 7. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Hon'ble Home Minister, who being the Competent Authority, recommended the name of respondent No. 3 for being appointed and the Competent Authority by order dated 08.12.2017 has appointed 3rd respondent as Member of the State Police Complaints Authority. It is this order, which has been called in question by the petitioner. 8. I have heard the arguments of Sri. G.R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 9. It is the contention of Sri. G.R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No. 3 is a close associate of the then Chief Minister and respondent No. 3 is not associated with any social service organization and with an intention to favour respondent No. 3, the then Chief Minister had recommended the name of 3rd respondent to be appointed as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that respondent No. 3 does not hold any qualification to hold the post of Member of the State Police Complaints Authority under the category of Civil Society and due to his closeness and nexus with the then Chief Minister, who is also a resident of Mysuru, 3rd respondent came to be appointed. He would further contend that duties and responsibilities of a Member of Competent Authority is a full time job and 3rd respondent being otherwise engaged would not be in a position to devote his full time or attend to the duties which requires to be discharged by a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority and as such, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned order of appointing 3rd respondent by allowing the writ petition. 10. 10. Per contra, Sri Vijaya Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has contended that petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold since recommendation of the Search Committee is not challenged and petitioner was also an applicant and had submitted an application and participated in the appointment process and as such, he cannot be heard to contend that deliberations of Search Committee either being flawed or the appointment of respondent No. 3 being erroneous/illegal. He would elaborate his submission by contending that amendment to Section 20C has been challenged after lapse of six years and on the ground of delay and latches alone, petition is liable to be rejected. He would also submit that even before amendment was incorporated, by an executive order dated 03.12.2010 the State Government had constituted the State Police Complaints Authority at the State and District levels in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and other Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 and as such, from the said date, said authorities have been operating and discharging their duties and functions. He would also contend that amendment having been incorporated namely, Section 20C and petitioner being a beneficiary is estopped from challenging the said amendment only on the ground that petitioner has not been selected and petitioner cannot approbate or reprobate at different intervals of time. On these grounds, relying upon the following judgments namely, (2015) 1 KLJ 526 and (2010) 9 SCC 655 , he prays for dismissal of the petition. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates at the Bar and also on perusal of the entire records made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it would emerge there from that at an undisputed point of time, petitioner herein was also a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority. In other words, subsequent to Act No. 30/2012 coming into force where under Section 20C of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 came to be incorporated, resulted in statutory recognition being granted to the State Police Complaints Authority and petitioner being one of the applicants was selected by the panel of the Search Committee who had also recommended the name of the petitioner and the then appropriate Government taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the case including suitability had appointed petitioner as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority under the category of "Civil Society." 12. In the instant case, facts on hand would disclose that Search Committee was constituted by order dated 03.11.2017 as per (Annexure-R2) under Sections 20C and 20D of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Said Committee which met initially on 26.05.2017 was of the view that thirty applications which had been received by the State Government pursuant to the publicity made was not sufficient and as such, upon deliberation, it resolved to call for further applications in its meeting held on 20.09.2017. Accordingly, a paper notification was issued and wide publicity was given by publishing notification inviting applications from the probable candidates and pursuant to said notification, thirteen (13) new applications received and all these applications i.e., 13 new applications in addition to thirty (30), which were already received, were placed before the Search Committee by the Member Secretary of the Search Committee. Perusal of the records would disclose that Search Committee has scrutinized, examined, considered the antecedents as well as necessity, background and capability of each of the applicants as to whether such applicant, if selected, would discharge duties as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority and these aspects have gone into the decision making process by the Search Committee. Accordingly, Search Committee was of the view/opinion that three names namely, that of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and one Smt. Parimala are eligible to be appointed had recommended their names to the Government to appoint one from amongst them. Said recommendation on being placed for consideration before the Additional Chief Secretary, then placed before the then Home Minister, who in turn forwarded the file to Competent Authority namely, the then Chief Minister and the then Chief Minister has approved the recommendation of the Search Committee and ordered to appoint respondent No. 3 as a Member of State Police Complaints Authority. Neither the records nor any other material which is available before this Court would disclose that any other material has been taken note of either by the Search Committee or by the then Chief Minister for approving the name of respondent No. 3 as a Member of State Police Complaints Authority. 13. It is trite law that Courts are not experts and the Courts would not sit in the arm chair of Search Committee to find out whether suitability, capability, or otherwise of the candidates/applicants whose applications would be scrutinized, examined by such experts and in the instant case, Search Committee being the expert, has delved upon all these aspects and resolved to recommend three names which included the name of the petitioner. It is from amongst these three names, the Competent Authority has approved the name of respondent No. 3 and this Court would not examine the decision of the Competent Authority unless the decision making process is flawed. Only in the event of petitioner being able to establish that decision making process if flawed, petitioner is bound to succeed, as otherwise, the end result would be fatal and that is what has happened in the instant case. 14. As could be seen from the averments made in the petition, the malice which has been attributed to the then Chief Minister by the petitioner is without any foundation and without any supporting documents and except self serving testimony or assertion of the petitioner, there is no other material and averments made in the petition are as vague, vagueness could be. In the absence of any cogent and positive material placed by the petitioner to establish mala fides, favouritism, nexus between respondent No. 3 and the then Chief Minister, appointment of respondent No. 3 to the State Police Complaints Authority as recommended by the Search Committee cannot be held as suffering from any infirmity either on facts or in law. 15. That apart, as rightly contended by learned Additional Government Advocate that when the finding of the Search Committee has not been challenged by the petitioner, he is estopped from challenging the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority. 15. That apart, as rightly contended by learned Additional Government Advocate that when the finding of the Search Committee has not been challenged by the petitioner, he is estopped from challenging the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority. Respondent No. 3 has also not earned any disqualification as prescribed under Section 20C of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which if had occurred, would have been a good ground for the petitioner to call in question the selection of respondent No. 3 as a Member of the State Police Complaints Authority. In other words, respondent No. 3 not being disqualified under Section 20C, appointment of respondent No. 3 cannot be found fault with. 16. At the outset, Sri G.R. Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that he would not press prayer No. (a). His submission is placed on record. 17. For the reasons afore stated, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, costs made easy.