IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAV OF AUGUST, K
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A:\F2.JUST'ICE_AJf.EA'4I'Ay.f§'."GflNLTT?tL' T J,
WRIT PETITION NOs.21297:-29'8'-OF f
BETWEEN :
Balakrishna M.R.
S/o Ramappa Gowda V V 2
Age 44 years, Occ : !V1a'n'age'r '
Masti House,;~'i3a«!..pya Viizlage
Post, Su|ia..Ta|uI<f__--.'_ « j y _
D.!<. District. ' ..Petitioner
(By ST?Ve'r1A!-{ateeHfVP. t'2'ayVl.:vvai, A"d'v'.i, for Srivaree Law Firm)
AND '
1. State L6? Ka rnataka
,,._%:Minti~stry Home Department
(Law and Order-)«,"Vadhana Soudha
'A _ Barn.ga.It3':=e-1, By its Secretary.
Magistrate &
Devputy-Vfiommissioner
D.v-KA., Mangalore-1. ...Respondents
‘ at (jay S’r’i..Narendra Prasad, HCGP.,)
-2-
These writ petitions are filed under Articies 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
order dated 5.7.2010 passed by R2 produced at
Annexure–G.
These writ petitions are coming on for pr’eiinti”i:’noa’ry
hearing, this day the Court made the foliowing; :_.
Mr.i\ia rend ra Prasad, learned
take notice for respondents ‘1.._Vand”
2. I have heard Mr.\[e’rik_atesh”D–allwai.vE learned
counsel for the petitio’nejr. _ ; it V
3′;i”The’:::petitiohe-rAV”*owhs”‘a”coffee estate and also
working a corhi:.anv:1._:l’of:’South Indian States. Suffice
it tqsay, res_ponden’t l\i’o.2 granted arms licence to the
lV.”-pe’t*itio?ner'”._in Forth No.5, which was meant for
of-.t.1he crops. The claim of the petitioner is
that th__erelA5i’s a threat to his iife and he wanted to have
the conditions altered for se|f–defence. The said
“Vre’qu:est is made in Form No.3. It is his case that in
/at/i
-3″
the first instance a recommendation was made by the
District Magistrate to grant the said licence,..:but’.:V_Vt~hve
said request has been rejected
impugned order.
4. Learned counsei.»fo..r.V
that the impugned order Jfiotice to
him. Another conteifiuo’a__ him is that
sufficient inforrna_tion:”WasZ’;gVi_Ve’:n._’invV-thfeuappiication for
change of ‘ 1 In if
HCGP submits
that the bereft of any information
except statin”g–that the area in which he resides is
ibycviforest boundaries of different States.
order.
6.__i-I perused the application as weii as the
-4-
7. Apparently, the impugned order does not
disclose that the request of the petitioner for_._gr.afn»_t~V.of
licence in Form No.3 is rejected. Indeed,
is made by the petitioner in the:a*pp.lica’_t.ioV_n’the
that there is a threat to his
material is produced to shboiii’V:”‘ii1ndeAed’«.”e;iuVre–G, dated 5.7.2010 stands quashed. Matter
‘s_tands remitted to the second respondent. Petitioner
/j
,5-
to make avaélabée additional materéaé before the
second respondent en support of his contention-«…:th.at
alternatéon of licence is requéred for self~defence’;v1’cI”‘ *
Mr.Narendra Prasad, |earned:.H C:GP {is
to file memo of appearance within’AfoL;rVweve’i<.s»…__