In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B WRIT PETITION NO.112655/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI.PRAMOD S/O HANUMANTARAO MUTHALIK AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:PRESIDENT SHREE RAM SENA, R/O:#9/20, BARAKOTRI, LEFT SIDE DHARWAD TQ/DIST:DHARWAD ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADV. ) AND THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT BELAGAVI ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDAI R/W SEC.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:30.10.2015, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. : 2 : THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Executive Magistrate/D.C.Belagavi District, bearing No.DC.Pee.O.L.CR.1157/2015-16 dated 30.10.2015 produced as at Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition that petitioner is the President of Shree Ram Sena, Karnataka. On 21.10.2015 petitioner was invited to Londa Village of Khanapur Taluk of Belgaum District to inaugurate branch office of Shree Ram Sena at Londa. It is alleged by the local Police that conducting the public meeting at the time of inauguration function of the said branch office was held without permission of the concerned authorities. Further also alleged that mike and speakers were also used without permission. : 3 : During the public meeting Shree Ram Sena workers viz., 1. Ramakant Konduskar 2. Pandit Ogale, Maruti Raju Sutar 3. Ramesh Nongappa Satyannavar 4. Deepak Loma Meerashi 5. Deepak Krishna Chorelkar 6. Praveen Mohan Masekar 6.Pundalik Parashuram Allolkar, have addressed the public unauthorisedly without permission during the inauguration function. However, the petitioner has not addressed the public during this inauguration function. Some of the above said workers have given a defamatory speech against muslim caste and religion, due to which unwanted atmosphere was prevailing in the locality, but the situation was handled peacefully using the Police force, and in consequence of which three criminal cases have been registered in Khanapur Police Station. The District Executive Magistrate, Belagavi i.e., respondent herein, taking into consideration of all the above facts and circumstances passed an order dated 30.10.2015, exercising the power under Section 144(3) : 4 : of Criminal Procedure Code, prohibiting the petitioner herein to enter Khanapur Taluk of Belagavi District for a period of 30 days from 30.10.2015, on the apprehension that entry of the petitioner may cause grave danger to the public tranquility and there may be communal riot. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition on the grounds that it is wholly illegal and arbitrary and the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. It is also mentioned in the grounds that the said order is contrary to the principles of natural justice. As per Section 144 Cr.P.C., the power can be exercised by the District Executive Magistrate, if he forms his own opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this Section and immediate prevention is desirable. It is further pleaded that, the Magistrate in the present case passed the order under Section 144 on the request of Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, but not after satisfying himself as to whether there exists a : 5 : disturbance of the public tranquility as required under the said provision of law. Therefore, passing of the impugned order by the respondent herein is without jurisdiction as he has not formed his own opinion. It is further contended by the petitioner herein that the respondent-District Executive Magistrate received Police report on 23.10.2015, whereas, the respondent has passed the order on 30.10.2015 and the impugned order is passed exparte, without any opportunity or notice to the petitioner. It is contended that though the order passed by the respondent is after the lapse of seven days after receiving the Police report, but no prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any emergency situation has been made out for issuing of such order. Hence, on these grounds, the petitioner herein challenged the legality and correctness of the said order passed by the respondent herein and sought for quashing the same. : 6 : 3. The respondent filed the objection statement to the petition, the petitioner is not entitled to any one of the relief sought for in the above writ petition. It is further contended that on 21.10.2015 one Sri Pandit Obale, President of Shree Ramsena, along with his followers (around 200 people) had organized a public procession and public meeting at Londa village without prior permission from the authorities and they took procession on that day at 6.00 to 7.00p.m. and held a public meeting on the public road nearby the mosque. The President of Khanapur Shree Ramsena wanted to open a new branch at Khanapur Taluk and in view of the same, they held these meetings by erecting a board at Londa village. During that time, the President and Vice-president of Shree Ramsena, gave their speeches in a derogatory remarks against Muslim community. Because of that reason, there was a communal riot taken place in Londa. Both the community youths pelted stones against each other and some of them got : 7 : serious injuries in the said incident and the Police Officers have taken control over situation and prevented the further damage. Further it is contended that taking into consideration of these incidents and after verifying the background facts and circumstances of the incident, The District Executive Magistrate, Belagavi, has exercised his power under Section 144(3) of Cr.P.C and passed the impugned order, which is challenged in this proceedings. Since there was apprehension that if the petitioner is permitted to enter the city within the short span of period of the incident, petitioner may cause grave danger to the public tranquility and communal riot. Hence, order passed by the respondent prohibiting the petitioner herein to enter Khanapur Taluk for a period of 30 days from the date of the order is in accordance with law. The order passed is preventive in nature and the said order is passed since there was grave danger to the : 8 : public tranquility and possibility of communal riot in the city, it was with an intention to maintain peace in the city and passed in the public interest. The procedure has been followed at the time of passing the said order and there is no illegality in the said order. Petitioner being a State President of Shree Ramsena, is known for his inflammatory speeches and he is facing many criminal cases in various Police Stations of the State. Since Police have learnt that petitioner is planning to visit Khanapur and nearby villages in the said Taluk, in this background, the respondent taking all these situations into consideration and after application of his mind, formed the clear opinion for issue of the said prohibitory order. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. : 9 : 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said order is illegal and it is against the principles of natural justice. No notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing such order. He has submitted that perusing the materials placed on record, there was no such emergency situation invoking Section 144 (2) of Cr.P.C in passing the order exparte. Hence, he has submitted that petition be allowed and the order passed by the respondent, which is challenged in this writ petition be set-aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1953 in the case of Pramod Muthalik vs. The District Magistrate, Davanagere . 6. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that there are many criminal cases filed against the petitioner, he is the president of Shree Ramsena, : 10 : Karnataka. In the earlier occasion also he gave the inflammatory speech, which affected the communal feelings of the Muslim communities and leads to breach of peace and public tranquility. Learned HCGP has also submitted that before passing such order, the respondent obtained the report from the competent Police Officers about the situation, after receiving the report and after applying the mind to the reports as well as the to the situation and as the situation demanded, the respondent proceeded to pass the exparte order in the matter. It is also submitted that the order passed is in the interest of public at large. No illegality has been committed in the said order. Therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court in this petition. The respondent authorised to pass such administrative orders and in this connection, learned HCGP has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court : 11 : reported in AIR 2004 SC 2081 in the case of State of Karnataka and another v. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia . 7. I have perused the averments made in the petition, the order passed by the respondent-District Executive Magistrate, which is produced as per Annexure-A and also the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, which are referred above. 8. Looking to the materials placed on record and the order passed as per Annexure-A, it shows that before issuing such order, the respondent obtained the report from the Police Officers on 23.10.2015 (as it is refereed in the order as per Annexure-A) and this order has been passed on 30.10.2015.