{"id":223417,"date":"2010-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-04T11:03:08","modified_gmt":"2015-04-04T05:33:08","slug":"sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 20\"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010\nBEFORE A V\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCH'IG:'E.R.I V  \n\nWRIT PETITION Nc5,29831-833,:'2'O1'0'or 201.0  I\n\nAND WRIT PETITION NO.3O887\/=.ZO1!'_.-)-A{L.B--R.ES-)    7\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.\n\nSRI M SANJEEVE GOWDA \nAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, _  _  \n\nS\/O LATE M.S.MALLEGOWDA., R\/AT NO'-4569,,\nBEHIND V.T.TEMPLE, KOTE,  _    \nCHANNAPATNA TOWN 1  '\nRAMANAGARAM DISTRICT,\u00bb  _ \n\nSMT. B.T.GHArIA'MAiI.I..31 ' ._    \nW\/O M. SAN3iEEV='fE GOWDA,  ,  I'\nAGED ABOUT 4S..,YEAT?~SI   ' ' \nR\/AT NO,' 1569,..E;.EI~IIN;D' 'I\/_.'I'>..TEMPLE,\nKOTE, CHANNAPATi'JA_,TOW'P~!_,  ' -\nRAMANAGARA.M   \n\nSMT. ROORNIEMA,' . _ \nAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,\n\n W\/O,_Cf'\u00abDEVARAJU, Si-IQ_P..NO. O6,\n\nIVLG.R'OAD,\"CHr\"..NNAPATNA TOWN,\n\n\"w.,RAMAN,AG,A'RAM, EEISTRICT\n\n PETITIONERS\n\n7r_(By Sri B TE:1'NDUE SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)\n A A V E\n\n' .TH.E STATE OF KARNATAKA\n,__\"\"REP;. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN\n '=DE--'JELOPMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING,\nFAMBEDKAR VEEDHI,\n\u00ab~ BANGALORE-560001\n\n\n\n2. THE COMMISSIONER,\nDIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,\nVISHWESWARIAIAH TOWER,\nAMBEDKAR VEEDHI,\nBANGALORE-560001\n\n3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,\nRAMANAGARAM DISTRICT   -\nRAMANAGARAM. I\n\n4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ,\nCHAN NAPATNA, \" _ \nRAMANAGARAM.DISTRICT, ' I.\nREPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIO_N'E.R \n\n  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
(By Sri R.DEvDAS, AGAFOR R-_ Sri A I}, G;AIIIGATDARAPPA FOR
\nC\/R4) .   :  .  –\n<\/p>\n
THESE WRIT”P’ETIT1G_NS 4.A.REIv..I=ILED.,UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND
\n227 OF THE CO’N_STjITUTION ,OEi,’E.I,N’–DIA “\u00bbPRAYING TO QUASH THE
\nORDER DT.17,..7_,.1O “RASS1ED,,_Es~.\/_ THE CO.MMISSIOENR DIRECTORATE OF
\nMUNICIPAL ADMINO.STRATION,’\u00bb..THE R2 WHICH IS AT ANN-A, THE
\nLETTER] DIRECTIONSI.ORDER\u00abDT;-2′;.7.I0 & 29.7.10 PASSED BY TEH
\nDEPUTY COM’MISSIoNEI'<,I';I<.PROJEc:T–~ DIRECTORATE, RAMANAGARAM
\nDIST. RAMANGARAM T'HE"R3. "–gt QUASH THE ORDERS DT.9.9.10,
\nISSUED BYTHE R4 ASPER ~.AN'N"-C TO G IN RESPECT OF THE SHOP
\nNO.3, 4,; 8!. ,5 GODOWN '& SHED, SITUATED AT M.G.ROAD,
\nEHANNAI\u00e9A\u00abTNAfTO_wN, wH..I.C.H ARE DESCRIBED AT THE SCHEDULE OF
\n'w_RIT PETITION AND ETC.\n<\/p>\n
 SETH-ESIE…W=RIT’PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRL HG. THIS DAY,<\/p>\n
 THE COURT MADETEE FOLLOWING:\n<\/p>\n
QRDER<\/p>\n
  The-..petitioners’ grievance is over the Canceliation of the<\/p>\n
of shop units. The petitioners were aliotted the shops<\/p>\n
  auction conducted on 20.12.2007.\n<\/p>\n
88}!<\/p>\n
2. Sri Indu Shekar, the learned counsei for the petitioners<\/p>\n
submits that the impugned orders are without the author_i:t’y.V_of<\/p>\n
law and without jurisdiction. He complains of the vioiIatio~n_’;o.f_VftE1e’*_<\/p>\n
principies of natural justice. He submits  <\/p>\n
Commissioner was directed to put theV=..,pet_itiQne’r=son”-notice<\/p>\n
this Court, by its order, dated i,2,s,o7.2.o*m, f’T..r,.\u00a2,._p\u00e9:puty.fi<\/p>\n
Commissioner has not issued any notice to the’ petitioriers. On
\nthe other hand, the respondent l\\lo._.4;M.unic’iv.pga~i. Council has been
\nputting the petitionerson noti~ce:,. jf ‘<\/p>\n
3. Sri Indu. petitioners have<\/p>\n
caused the    their learned advocate.\n<\/p>\n
The reply  at ali, so contends Sri Indu
\nShekar. i-Ale, furtheriv in respect of 51 persons, no
\nl\u00e9:\u00e91VSe..deedA:’wi.iiats–oeveVrVis””eXVecuted. However, those persons are<\/p>\n
allowedggto’table…i:An-opossession of the shop units belonging to the<\/p>\n
V7op\u00b0’*~v’responde_nt  ‘ii-le aiso complains of hostile discrimination.<\/p>\n
*4ifjiegs-ubmits”that the respondent No.4 is not doing anything to<\/p>\n
  staggering rent arrears from 161 allottees.<\/p>\n
 Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, the iearned counsel for the<\/p>\n
‘respondent No.4 submits that the impugned Annexures–A to C<\/p>\n
HBH.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\nare in the nature of inter office correspondence. Such<\/p>\n
communications cannot be the subject matter of challenge in the<\/p>\n
writ proceedings. He submits that only 5 persons took’. p.ait_V_in<\/p>\n
the open auction and those 5 persons are;”””ai-soq:_5the’=_<\/p>\n
representatives, reiatives\/shadows of the earlier~i–ail_ojttee:s iigwho 2 <\/p>\n
were allotted the shop units in the auction:-.Cohd’ugcted’—i4n’=<\/p>\n
As what has been done is not.___in V”compiia:fucej_:.vv_iVth_T\u00a7<\/p>\n
requirements of the provisions of thue”Kxar’ngataVl’\u00a7a*iiiravnsparency in
\nPublic Procurement Act,   officers have
\ninitiated the proceedings forgthei_c–anhceli.ati’o’n.’ i.’\ufb01tii’e allotments of
\nthe shop units. Hgeilgfhevifreintais fetched in 2004
\nand fetchedliin  the recurring loss is about
\nRs.70,000\/~   ,  <\/p>\n
 5.  i\\’f’.~’.I.\u00a73angadh_a_rappa, ailaying the misgivings raised<\/p>\n
bv”_the1″petit.ion.e*i*s'”–side submits that the respondent No.4 is<\/p>\n
 bound ‘to’ ‘act si’m’i\u00ab!.ari=v’in respect of the allottees whose cases are<\/p>\n
VV7__aki:1 to the “pVet’itioners’ cases. He further submits that the<\/p>\n
.1 ..reSpo.nden.t No.4 has fairly offered to refund the entire premium<\/p>\n
.”-f’_~-arno.–un’t:. H<\/p>\n
QBH.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. Sri R.Devdas, the learned Additional Government<\/p>\n
Advocate also has a grievance over the petitioners’\ufb02’a__cts,.of<\/p>\n
managing to get the shop units allotted at a rate;i’o’w.er–.’..than”\u00ab_<\/p>\n
what was given in 2004. He submits that under.-Suefctiyofnii    <\/p>\n
the said Act, the Government has the powefjr’\u00b0to’:4.ca\u00abl|4″fovryltwbieif<\/p>\n
records with a view to ensure transp_aren’cy in thepryoc\u00e9urement <\/p>\n
process. Sri Devdas submits that”>..t_he_Vpubiic:in’tere,st is of
\nparamount importance in cases. .AVlBec.aus,e of the mistake,<\/p>\n
which may have beenVcomm’itted..,b.y_V s:on’ie,.’of\u00a7;t.ri’e officers, the<\/p>\n
interests of the  r\u00e9spo_n”dVen_t..:Vloca.5…..:body cannot be<\/p>\n
permitted to suffer,  .\n<\/p>\n
7. I do not \u00absee  in the submission urged on
\nbehalf of the petilt’ion:ers.”regarding the violation of the principles
\noff”natural,ijuis-tice,, The””‘p’etitioners were indeed put on two<\/p>\n
notilc’-as,” caused the reply to the notice through<\/p>\n
:i)*t.l’:eir learned a.dvo:<_:a;te. The submission urged on behalf of the<\/p>\n
–i%.l,”p;eti_tio,ners that’1~the notice ought to have been given only by the<\/p>\n
 4’~i5e<pu'tyConumissioner also does not commend itself to me. It<\/p>\n
.  suffice, if the functionary who is securing the eviction of<\/p>\n
Viwlthe\u00e9petitioners, has issued the notice.<\/p>\n
33%.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. On my pointedly asking when the petitioners were put in<\/p>\n
possession, divergent answers were given. Sri Indts.Shge’i<ar<\/p>\n
submits that the petitioners took the possession   _<\/p>\n
30.06.2008. Sri A.V.Gangadharappa subrnits t'hat"-th_e'V"date  it<\/p>\n
making over possession to the petitioners <\/p>\n
30.06.2008 or 05.05.2009, the pet'i'tiVonerSV. have i'b'eeinv\u00ab–.cari'ying–.t"<\/p>\n
on their business. They must have some.impr_oyge:ments to
\nthe shop units so as to  '\u00e9the\ufb01iri requirements.
\nNoticing the infirmities. in  the allottees
\ncannot be thrown. ijisalilllllthe more so, when
\nthey are  their livelihood. It is
\nnobody's case   have committed any fraud.\n<\/p>\n
For the lapse on'”‘thhe~.;j.art”\u00bb.of'”‘.the officials, the private parties<\/p>\n
c-anriotg  lputito “u..nmitigVa’ted loss.<\/p>\n
“‘9~.:\\t’–et VVar*ldtjhetV’aspect of the matter which cannot be lost<\/p>\n
vl*T__sighVt of is4″tha’tVal’though the auction was conducted in December<\/p>\n
.1 “the cancellation proceedings are initiated 2’\/2 years<\/p>\n
 in _’}uly 2010. If the respondents were diligent in<\/p>\n
 ‘ ‘v..,gth’eVVVrna’tter, things would have been different.<\/p>\n
9.314.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
10. My perusal of the tender cum open auction<\/p>\n
Notification, dated 03.12.2007 reveals that it was open to a<\/p>\n
desirous party to submit its tender and take part in thepaiuction<\/p>\n
or to take part in the open auction without submitting”‘itsf,te_n’\u00e9er.~~.<\/p>\n
Such being the tender notification, it cannot  the<\/p>\n
petitioners are blameworthy.\n<\/p>\n
11. My scrutiny of the rent -agreeineiit  <\/p>\n
power is reserved to the Municipality’-to c,ancei–th0e’:alloitment of
\nthe shop for the lapse on th’e_”fpart’_VAof,V–the~\u00ab..Qfti’cials in adhering to<\/p>\n
the transparency law, Furth.e.r,’_the.Karn.ataE{qa.V,*–i”ransparency in<\/p>\n
Public Procuren9iVe’tit:i,7,{\u00a7ct,’0;’f.i’9F\u00a7f9~tand vRules framed thereunder
\ndo not provizdelfor theev_ilct–io’ri\u00ab.’of the allottees on the higher
\nofficers noticing the,_:om.issio’nVi’h: adhering to the provisions of the<\/p>\n
 for the above-mentioned reasons, the<\/p>\n
Vmimpugne.d”%can.ce’iiaiti’on proceedings are unjustified)unsupportable<\/p>\n
-4fjarid’v..unsusta,in1able. However, it is also trite in law that in<\/p>\n
{~-‘.:Vexe’r0cise>_o’i? the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
‘  l\u00e9ghis Court would not quash an order, merely because a<\/p>\n
ipaprty makes out a case in law; the public interest has to weigh<\/p>\n
REM<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nwith the Court. In taking this view, I am fortified by the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMNIKLAL N.
\nBHUTTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,<\/a> reported in <\/p>\n
SC 1236.\n<\/p>\n
13. If the impugned orders areggqVuashe.d’;”‘then A<\/p>\n
consequence is that the petitioners wouldgconti\u00e9it:.ue-.’<\/p>\n
rentals, which aggregate to Rs.13′.00_O\/~Vi’0_r”afl the put-.i*<\/p>\n
together, whereas the prevaiiingl:”rate._   around
\nRs.70,000\/- per month. Therefore’A–_th\u00abe’  pubiic interest<\/p>\n
demands that this Court shou’id.h.riotV the canceilation<\/p>\n
proceedings!  petitioners’ interests are
\naiso requiredttogbesafeguaa’d’ed:e’ftective|y and guardedly.<\/p>\n
 my view, the ends of justice would be
\n Hrueasonabie time to the petitioners to<\/p>\n
locate .a’it._ern’ati’v,e p.iVati’es, vacate the present premises and shift<\/p>\n
A  the aite-rna_tive piaces.\n<\/p>\n
  iEiA.i__4As”‘ri.ghtiy pointed out by Sri Devdas, Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
Acttempowers the Government to cail for the records with a<\/p>\n
  ivi–eVV”toi ensure the transparency. I do not propose to give any<\/p>\n
\u00a358.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
direction to the Government to cail for the records of the auction<\/p>\n
held on 20.12.2007. It is for the Government to take a decision<\/p>\n
whether to caii for the records and examine the whoie <\/p>\n
16. Considering the facts and circumstances”-of
\nthis Court deems it fit and just to grant’ab’out\u00e9_one,yearj’s:perio0.d.
\nto the petitioners to vacate and hand ove’r__ti’..eA.vaca_n_.tA<\/p>\n
to the respondent No.4 subject ‘to:”‘the io*i..iQwi.n_”g  and’<\/p>\n
conditions:\n<\/p>\n
i)<\/p>\n
The petitioners shaiir.vac-atieandi.%.han’dover the vacant<\/p>\n
possessiVon:o\u00abf_  or ‘befo re 01.1 1.201 1.<\/p>\n
 thisVreg’ard,..,’n4tih\u00e9”‘*petitioners’ side has filed the<\/p>\n
merino”urnd’e_rtaki”ng.’iito vacate the premises on or<\/p>\n
 tiefore  1.20011. The same is taken on record.<\/p>\n
  The.petiti_oners are aiso at liberty to take out ail the
\n  objects iaid in their shops.\n<\/p>\n
zThne’Vr’espondent No.4 shaii refund the entire security<\/p>\n
00 ‘*u__deposit\/premium amount to the petitioners. It is<\/p>\n
it made ciear that the respondent No.4 siiali not retain<\/p>\n
any portion of the said amount or forfeit any<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n
QB!-i.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
vi)<\/p>\n
vii)<\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\nThe petitioners are directed to restore the shop units<\/p>\n
to the respondent No.4 in the same condition in<\/p>\n
which they took their possession.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners shaii keep clearing the  _
\nas and when they fall due tiiithey xracatesaihrj ‘hyanci ” it
\nover the vacant possession  the respon-de’nt”i\\io_,_4’::;_A\u00ab<\/p>\n
The petitioners shaii also-i.i\u00bb;Veep’ci.ea riyngfthei <\/p>\n
and water charges in re4s’pe:ct,V_of th’e.:shopVf%units till
\nthey vacate the Vp–re:i’nises.;’~  ” ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
It is open to the peti:t.ione~rs:vto”ta_ke”‘.p’a’rt in the tender
\nprocess}:   is going to
\ninitiate .Vfvo’ir.a-!.i:otti’nig::’the shop units afresh at the end<\/p>\n
of o’ne”yVea’i’_. other things remaining the<\/p>\n
..\u00ab}gsame (ifn’t’h.e:v_offg:=:rs made by the petitioners and the<\/p>\n
A  _ otherpersons\/applicants are for the same amount),<\/p>\n
x’i.–.;thVe\u00e9Vu.”_r–esposndent No.4 shaii accept the petitioners’<\/p>\n
 offe rs}<\/p>\n
F15 H.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
16. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order <\/p>\n
BS t0 COSECS.\n<\/p>\n
    A<\/p>\n
bvr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20″‘ DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE A V THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCH’IG:’E.R.I V WRIT PETITION Nc5,29831-833,:’2’O1’0’or 201.0 I AND WRIT PETITION NO.3O887\/=.ZO1!’_.-)-A{L.B–R.ES-) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-04T05:33:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-04T05:33:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1726,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-04T05:33:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-04T05:33:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-04T05:33:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010"},"wordCount":1726,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010","name":"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-04T05:33:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-sanjeeve-gowda-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri M Sanjeeve Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}