-';_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE" DATED THIS THE 18"' DAV OF NOVEMBER, 2016:' j i BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOI»-IAIN-Q"J51?-IAt\:TANAa'£~AC§'UE;}T€§V'R:V" WRIT PETITION Nos.35eouEeo4/2d1 ..Respondents (By Sri San'garnes"h ~...Writx'P'e't:'t§ohs are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of tvhe.Con.stitution of India praying to issue a writ of '*certio'rari~.theorder dated 28.6.2010 issued by the R3 and a'iso'"t_he"or'c.ier dated 10.8.2008 passed by the R2 which are pro*d_uced we Annexu res~A & B to B2. - These Writ Petitions are coming on for preliminary A ":.heari'r*:_g this day, the Court made the following : -3- ORDER
The petitioners have sought for quashing the
orders vide Annexure-A, dated 28.6.2OJ,0.’,:.:”‘».and
Annexures–~B, B1 and B2, dated
consequently have sought formya
respondents to deiete the names–eoii jp-e’titIi’0.ne:r_s
from the rowdy list. _ . V _ V _
2. The petitioners had___i:éfp:pro_ached«.tVhAis_fiCourt by
fifing wP.Nos.35963irW& 358a4.5¥4’8,%2oo9 before this
Court; “”” were disposed of on
4.1.2610 as by observing thus:-
V ‘V given my anxious
I__f’conside*ra.tior:, I am of the view that the
‘i'[}?§i”Ugned endorsement cannot be
1 ti; Indeed, after the conclusion of
trial, it is open for the respondents
‘~ _ “to watch the behaviour of the petitioners
and decide whether their name should
ya
-4-
be continued as rowdy sheeter or
requires to be deleted.”
3. The petitioners fiied review .._”pe_ti_t’i=on
Nos.147/2010 & 173-175/2010.
petitions were also dismisseci””by.gth”ge _io’rd3F:tVV’d’atei’dAV
20.4.2010 as per Annexure-F
open for the petitioners tofm.ai<e0 aya'iwia'bie':.:'aVi'i' such 0'
records before the r.espornden'tsVV:"'ito show "that the
criminal cases against the_rr!fa:re CQii'e.i},~:0i&:d. These writ
petitions are fair thge.'°ve*rj['r'e~iie.fs as were prayed
in theaafo itn 'd:r"a.atte" .
4-_. ‘r’§s~c'<)':..idf Ee';seeii'?rom the documents at
Annexures.:A,. 82, it is clear that certain of
cpases""are..isti|| pending adjudication against
This Court has aiready concluded in
& 36846/2009 that the petitioners may
move the respondents after disposal of all the criminal
J
cases. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to
approach this Court over and again for the very feliefs
during the pendency of the criminai cases.
Hence, no interference is caiied for. .,é'{cco:'td1'ij'n–gtiy;'
writ petitions faii and same are.dismis:sedt"'
*Cl{/I1}{-