Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1311 (KAR)

Nandakumar Naidu v. State of Karnataka

2019-06-17

B.VEERAPPA

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a Senior Citizen is before this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 13.7.2012 issued by the Police Inspector, Town Police Station, Tiptur, Tumkur District, being arbitrary, erroneous, opposed to law, equity and justice as per Annexure-V and a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein to refer the entire matter to the C.B.I. for investigation regarding misdeeds done by the 6th and 7th respondents herein touching the character and integrity of the society or in the alternative direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioner for referring the matter regarding illegal activities and criminal acts being done by respondent Nos.6 and 7 to the C.B.I for investigation and report as per Annexure-H. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that private respondent Nos.6 and 7 have been committing crimes one after another and have been misusing and misappropriating public money in the guise of running educational institutions. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not only duped the people, but also have been getting undue benefits from the Government and other Public Institutions. The Banks and even Education Department are also not exceptions in their cases. The 6th respondent has also misappropriated and misused the funds of Mattadhipathi/Swamigalu of Murusavir Mutt by creating forged Power of Attorney and by operating Bank accounts without any authority of law to do so. Though all these matters were brought on record and were complained to the Public and Government, no action of whatsoever has been taken against them. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that inaction on the part of the respondents-police authorities in not considering the representation made by the petitioner and in not taking action against respondent Nos.6 and 7 is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that inaction on the part of the respondents-police authorities in not considering the representation made by the petitioner and in not taking action against respondent Nos.6 and 7 is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contended that the 6th respondent has manipulated the record of rights, building permissions and also building license in collusion with the revenue and municipal authorities to gain a benefit making it to appear as if the land stands in his name and that the building permission is already granted for the construction of D.Ed., College at Tiptur. He would further contend that the 6th respondent-authority has misguided and misrepresented to the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) of Southern Regional Committee, located at H.M.T. Post, Bangalore that the land belongs to the institution run by the 6th respondent and that blue print and building permissions are being granted by the competent authorities in his favour. He would further contend that all the misdeeds and misrepresentation committed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 have been brought to the notice of various authorities, but no action has been taken by the respondentauthorities. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 13.7.2012 by referring the matter to the C.B.I. for investigation. 5. Per contra, Miss Niloufer Akbar the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 at the outset submits that the very writ petition filed by the petitioner for the relief sought is not maintainable before this Court. She would further contend that the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent Nos.6 and 7 are personal in nature and absolutely no material is produced before this Court to take action against respondent Nos.6 and7. She also pointed that as per Annexure-H, a letter had been addressed to General Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Head Office; Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Tiptur Branch; Superintendent of Police, Bangalore and also the Director of CBI., wherein the complainant has not disclosed his name and address for his Security reasons. She also pointed that as per Annexure-H, a letter had been addressed to General Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Head Office; Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Tiptur Branch; Superintendent of Police, Bangalore and also the Director of CBI., wherein the complainant has not disclosed his name and address for his Security reasons. She would further contend that the present writ petition is filed only for personal vengeance against respondent Nos.6 and 7 and it is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the specific relief to settle grouse, if any, against the respondent Nos.6 and 7. She also submitted that the petitioner has not made out any ground to refer the matter to the C.B.I for investigation and until and unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents are not in a position to register a criminal case or to verify the same, then only question of referring the matter to the C.B.I. would arise. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made out any ground to refer the matter to C.B.I. and the prayers sought are in general and not specific. Infact, the learned Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the second prayer is for directing the first and second respondents to refer the matter to the C.B.I. for investigation regarding misdeeds done by the 6th and 7th respondents touching the character and integrity of the society and if anything happens, the petitioner cannot act as an authority and he has not shown any specific instances or specific allegations against the persons. The prayers sought in the present writ petition are in the nature of mandamus and the same cannot be granted in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to refer the matter to the C.B.I. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not only cheating the people, but are getting undue benefit from the Government and other public institutions. The Banks and even Education Department are also not exception in their case. The 6th respondent has also misappropriated and misused the funds of Matadhipathi/Swamigalu of Murusavir Muth by creating forged Power of Attorney and by operating bank accounts without any authority of law. The Banks and even Education Department are also not exception in their case. The 6th respondent has also misappropriated and misused the funds of Matadhipathi/Swamigalu of Murusavir Muth by creating forged Power of Attorney and by operating bank accounts without any authority of law. Unfortunately, the Banks, Education Department or the Mattadhipathi/Swamigalu has not made any allegations and the petitioner cannot urge on behalf of the entire Institution and ask for referring the matter to the C.B.I for investigation. The matter is already pending before the Calcutta High Court and there are cases pending before the Civil Court at Hubli. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that action will be taken only after the decree is passed by the competent Civil Court and hence the said letter dated 13.7.2012 cannot be quashed. In that view of the matter, the police authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with the Civil matters when the matter is already ceased before the Civil Court and hence, the first prayer cannot be granted and accordingly, it is rejected. 7. In so far as the second prayer sought by the petitioner regarding issue of writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to refer the entire matter to the C.B.I., for investigation regarding misdeeds done by respondent Nos.6 and 7 respondent touching the character and integrity of the society cannot be issued since the petitioner cannot act on behalf of the entire Society. 8. In so far as the third prayer is concerned, the petitioner has made representation to the General Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Head Office; Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Tiptur Branch; Superintendent of Police, Bangalore and also the Director of CBI., who have not been arrayed as party-respondents in the present writ petition. In the absence of any judicially enforceable and legally protected right made out by the petitioner, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Subrat Jain etc vs- State of Haryana and Others, (1977) AIR SC 276 wherein at para-9 it has been held as under: 9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, para 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander, (1974) 1 SCR 165 ] = ( AIR 1973 SC 2216 ); Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 3 SCR 58 = AIR (1976) SC 578] and Ferris : Extraordinary Legal Remedies, paragraph 198.) 9. In view of the above, petitioner has not made out any ground to grant the prayers as sought for in the present writ petition exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the petitioner to make specific allegations against specific person and specific authority and it is for the concerned authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law.