Karnataka High Court: While deciding a batch of writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench comprising of A.S. Bopanna, J denied to grant writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners.
The petitioners prayed before the Court to issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Police Officers, not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners and violate their personal liberty. They were also seeking directions to be issued to the respondents to carryout their duties within the framework of law and not to harass the petitioners.
The petitioners carried out business of pawn brokers, having appropriate license in that regard. They contended that though they had been carrying their business activities in accordance with law, yet, the police authorities were interfering with their business activities in the guise that certain articles were to be recovered from the shop of the petitioners. The petitioners also contended that even if the value of the articles concerned is taken into account, the registration of a criminal case and interference with their business activities was not justified.
The High Court, after perusing the record, was of the view that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the actions of any of the subordinate police officials, an appropriate representation was required to be made to the concerned authorities, putting forth their grievance. There was no such representation made by the petitioners to the authorities concerned. Therefore, the Court was of the view that a mandamus in the nature as sought by the petitioners would not arise at that point in time.
Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the authorities concerned. The authorities were directed to receive such representation, verify the details, and examine the grievance of the petitioners. [Pani Devi v. State of Karnataka, WP Nos. 30057-61 of 2017, order dated 17.11.2017]
