{"id":48612,"date":"2010-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-26T23:31:16","modified_gmt":"2015-01-26T18:01:16","slug":"m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 25?\" DAY or AUGUST 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. H1NcH1G.E:iI'_,jiA  _\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nM. Prakash,\nS\/o Muraiyappa,\nAge 35 years,\nR\/at 060.1660,\nBehind Vani Talkies,   ;\nChickbaliapur Town,   \nChickballapur Taluk and._DiStrict._.._ _  '\n  6 *  Petitioner\n\n(By    Advocate for\n:_Sri 'M Jaiti-rakas'h__R'ed'dy, Advocate)\n\nAND:\n\n1. _ The ..S--?;ate~of Kaim-ataka,,.\n 'By its Se'c.rei.'-ary, H\n De'p--a_rtment\u00ab.of'~~Excise,\n Viaharra,:Soudha,_j..\nBan'g--aiore .--?--56_O O01.\n\n -- The Com~rniSs\"iioner for Excise,\n\n\u00bb- \u00ab.__\"-Vokkaligara Bhavan,\n ' ;'~NEXt,_t0 Corporation,\n T '~F\u00a7a.f3ga.iore -- 560 002.\n\nh  The Deputy Commissioner,\n\n Chickbailapur District,\n Chickbailapur - 562 101.\n\nWRIT PETITIQN Ng.117-45 gf2oM_1,o (Exc-2ge)v  Q\"  \n\n\n\n4. Ameer Mohd. Sadiq,\n\nS\/o Late K. Ameerjan,\nAged about 50 years,\nR\/at Prashanth Nagar,\nChikkabaiiapur,\nChikkabailapur -- 562 101.\n\n(Impieaded as per Court's order, dated 25.8.2_i)'iif:):.) V   H\n\n      \n\n(By Sri R. Devdas, AGA, for R41 to. R-3,  . ' \" '\nSri SP. Shankar, Sr}A'dyocate for. 3 _  \nM\/s. Lex Justicia for irrrpieadiirrig\u00bbappiicant*R+=4)\",\n\nThis writ petition is fiied' u.nderdArticl4es\"2._26 and\"2'27 of the\nConstitution of India praying to\u00abquashithe\"'orde't'--.,dated 6.4.2010\nvide Annexure--U passed by the R3; and etc~.._  \n\nThis writ petitio:1\"co1minL3i on   day, the Court\nmade the following:  44  ~ *  \u00ab-- \n\nThe' petitioner\" had'  challenge to the order, dated\n0Ei_...Q4.2010\u00a7g 'v(Annexur=e$:t.i_) 'passed by the respondent No.3<\/pre>\n
Deputy :Co{nmVis$ion’er._<\/p>\n
2.3′ jihe Vp.et:i’t_io}ner is a CL-9 licensee. By the impugned<\/p>\n
 the respondent No.3 held that the petitioner’s Bar and<\/p>\n
 ‘:..l\u00a7e\u00abstaurant”‘”i\u00abs not within the prescribed radius of 5 kms. from the<\/p>\n
 ‘spot of Muddenahalli. Therefore the respondent No.3<\/p>\n
‘iirV4:_”ca_ric.eiled the C{.–9 licence granted to the petitioner earlier. He<\/p>\n
 also heid out an assurance that if the petitioner shifts the said<\/p>\n
O<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Bar and Restaurant to some place which is within 5 kms. radius<\/p>\n
of Muddenahalli, his application could be considered.<\/p>\n
3. Sri Padmanabha V. Mahale, the learned Senior’Ct0u”n–se\u00bbi,,<\/p>\n
appearing for Sri M. Jaiprakash Reddy for the  ”<\/p>\n
that the piace where the petitioner iswrunninsj  1′<\/p>\n
Restaurant in question is within the ra.diu\u00absll’of15_,’,’l<ms. <\/p>\n
Muddenahaili tourist spot. He sub'rr:i'i'ts, that.__Rulei".S('3.)"""0f"jthe " 1<\/p>\n
Karnataka Excise Licences (Generai&,.Con\u20ac;iitio~ns) Ruies, 15367 (for
\nshortjthe Rules') has no applicat'ioni..for:i arising under<\/p>\n
Tourism Promotion Sch'eme.;:"wFle my notice the<\/p>\n
provisions colnltlaineidvf, 11'._"o'i"'the Karnataka General
\nCiauses Act,  wl1–icl*r.'v'reojuiVre..tttat the distance be measured
\nin a straight line 0.. horizontal mane.\n<\/p>\n
‘V:,_.'”4.VThVe \ufb01fe-arii.ed Senior Counsel further submits that the<\/p>\n
impleadirigVAl’a.p:pii’caiit?s presence is not necessary for the<\/p>\n
2’v\ufb01lavdjudicati-o_n of the issues invoived in this petition. He brings to<\/p>\n
 thefeariier order, dated. 12.11.2009 passed in Writ<\/p>\n
“~.. ‘ir$e’t:tiorrr.N:’r5.3114s\/2009. Similar appiication filed by the<\/p>\n
“i.rn:pl.e,adting appiicant in the said writ petition came to be<\/p>\n
V’3″‘~…:li’~\u00ab.Td’isrriissed by this Court, by its order, dated 12.11.2009. The<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
the Bar and Restaurant in the tourism development quota has to<\/p>\n
be either Nandi Hills or Muddenahalli and certainly.-=.__not<\/p>\n
Chickballapur. On this short ground alone, he prays<\/p>\n
remariding of the matter for fresh consideratioii  he<\/p>\n
respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned A.G.A. further_submits”that thispetgiitionllhas .<\/p>\n
virtually become infructuous becauseylylthle d_irecti’o.n:s ‘eontained in
\nthe impugned order are only:i”oi_r the  2009A-10. He
\nfurther submits that even wh_eri ..tlie__’Viice=nce'”~:i_’n..’~Vfavour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not rene’we’d.i,ii’ he “coritiriueS v.h..i.s business activity<\/p>\n
by virtue of theliinteiiim jofistay ‘gra’nlted by this Court.<\/p>\n
7. Sri $\u00ab.P,4Shani<-aVr;..:the""—-ilea.rned Senior Counsel for the
\nimpleading;app.licant'"3ubmits' that the very same engineer, who<\/p>\n
  the distance between the two piaces is<\/p>\n
 4.6  a report that the distance actually<\/p>\n
V'vV3.rnea_sures"~S.S..i'itrris. He further submits that the Tourism<\/p>\n
W4'l_3evelVop.ment "V–'15epartment has not put up any positive<\/p>\n
'u"~\u00e9.f\u00ab.recornrn_ei'sdations. It has not even given the N.O.C. to the<\/p>\n
  of the Ci,-9 licence in favour of the petitioner by the<\/p>\n
la"'~w.!%l"~re'sp'ondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
REM.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
8. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions<\/p>\n
made at the bar.\n<\/p>\n
9. Subsequent to the filing of this petition, the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner has renewed the petitioner’s Cl.-9 licence vidle\u00e9lllhlys<\/p>\n
order, dated 13.7.2010 till 31.7.2010 subject to <\/p>\n
identifying some place within 5 kms. radius and sh\u00abiftihgVth:ereto,:”  <\/p>\n
within 25.7.2010. The petitioner flied <\/p>\n
inclusion of the additional prayer forr’challen’giv_’ng the,\u00bb0V’rd.e:rV,\u00e9’ dated
\n13.7.2010. This Court, by its interim o*rder,.,V%dar\u00e9d ,2i3.i17..?.o10 has
\nstayed the said order. The inte’r\u00abim  extended from<\/p>\n
time to timeglv     <\/p>\n
10. As ”*the_ o’i’der._.   dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-W)
\nreiterates rzonditiondmposed on the petitioner in the third<\/p>\n
res’pondVe\u00abntV’Vs  order, dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure-U), as<\/p>\n
‘.”\u00bb.,>Annexure%W’ ‘Q.niy a continuation of Annexure-U,<\/p>\n
 isvlrequired to be allowed and accordingly it is<\/p>\n
.: a,lVl’0we,d: :  ,_<\/p>\n
 impugned order (Anne\u00e9c\u00e9rg-U) may have been<\/p>\n
      _ ,s’n\u00a3~e.n\u00a3’rom
\n passed’ with the best Of+F\u00a5%O\ufb01061I but then the same has to meet<\/p>\n
REH.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
the scrutiny of law. The 5 kms. radius cannot be calculated<\/p>\n
based on the actual length of the road or path frorn”‘~~.tyhe<\/p>\n
petitioner’s present place of business to Muddenahalliyy<\/p>\n
spot. If the Government wanted the distance to be  l<\/p>\n
a particular manner depending on the acl.’uaVl l’engt~=h of .ro’a.d\/pa:th,l””.<\/p>\n
it would have provided for the same.\n<\/p>\n
12. As the learned A.G.A. fai’r’tl.yi”subrnitte_d;rrliEui\u00abei_V5(3l of V<\/p>\n
the Rules is in the context of.r”1ot_ gra’n’t’ind”jjthVet’ .l.icence”for” the sale
\nof liquor to the shop or premises: seiected.._MA\u00a7I’\\ibln\u00a7’..a distance of<\/p>\n
100 mts. from any reli’gy_Eo’us or edu.catio’nal.institutions, hospital,<\/p>\n
etc. Furtheryvlltlhve”executive Engineer has
\nvide his report; dated. _:1\u00a2”E.5′.l.A._l24V3._\u00bb2’l3V\u20ac.l;_:9’i4iannexure-P) accompanied by
\ntopography_.r_napl”ofV_:Vthe..’-\\lii!ad’eV has certified that the radial
\ndistarice ..Mudde’n’ahaili to Chickballapur M.G.Road –<\/p>\n
Dinnehosahailiifiiirciiei.:(l\u00a7f.rashanth Nagar), is about 4.6 kms.<\/p>\n
  13.Th.is also finds considerabie force in the<\/p>\n
“–s’u’Vbrni’ssion u’rg_.e’d on behalf of the petitioner that as per Section<\/p>\n
 flriarnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 the distance<\/p>\n
‘sh’aE.i.,_M_unless different intention appears, be measured in a<\/p>\n
‘lV.i’str–aight line on horizontal plane. In the absence of any Rule for<\/p>\n
9.314.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nmeasuring the distance in any other way, the distance has to be<\/p>\n
measured drawing the straight iine from the centre of a circle to<\/p>\n
its periphery. The Law Lexicon gives the meaning of tt:veV_,i;elrm_<\/p>\n
‘radius’ as “right line drawn or extended from the<\/p>\n
circle to its periphery.”\n<\/p>\n
14. The third respondent’s view, tin,’at’i’tHe<\/p>\n
cannot come by air and that a pedestriyan has to yii\u00a73i’it:”dow’n a
\ndistance of 5 kms. is no doubt true–,Vi,”biit”-~on that..groi}nd the<\/p>\n
Detitioner cannot be unsuited.”\n<\/p>\n
3.5. For all thef;afores::aVid_,f\u00a2\u20aczis.o’ns’,.._thewtnpugned order,<\/p>\n
dated 6.4.2GtiO isAVl’ija’hi.g_\ufb01’to>”be-‘.,qu.ashed and accordingiy it is
\nquashed. The fu:rther}’cointin4u”at’i’on\/consequentiaI order, dated\n<\/p>\n
13._v?.2010__;is” aiso\u00e9aii’ab_le’1to.’v:be quashed and accordingly it is
\n .  ‘V  …..\n<\/p>\n
l’i6.”l…\u00a3fxt’fiie”_y_ery”o.rder renewing the licence in favour of the<\/p>\n
VVigpetitionerdwere.to””‘be challenged before this Court, this Court<\/p>\n
_’r~.av__e examined the issue of renewal of the licence in a<\/p>\n
‘V’:a_’-.:nonj~to’Lifi’st’jspot\/tourist circuits. This Court, therefore, is not<\/p>\n
ll””‘=__expres*silng any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of<\/p>\n
it”‘~.,l>_4′”gi;anting the renewal in Chickbaliapur and not in Muddenahaili.<\/p>\n
\ufb01BH.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. If the licence is renewed without noticing certain facts,<\/p>\n
circuiars, etc. or without foiiowing the Ruies and normjs,–\u00bb:’i’t_V’i’s_<\/p>\n
aiways open to the respondent No.3 to re-examine th,e”–issuTe:.i:’a’nd””:A ‘<\/p>\n
pass appropriate orders in accordance withwthe p’ower’c,onfe.r_red’i’, it<\/p>\n
upon him by sub–Ruie 4 of Ruie 5 of tn_e”‘lVRuli’es_,vi,’<\/p>\n
extracted hereinbeiow:\n<\/p>\n
“5. Restriction in, . respect”-o’i’-.._Iocatian <\/p>\n
shops.-\n<\/p>\n
(1 ) xxxxx
\n(2) xxxxx _ __ .  _
\n(3) xxxx)\/ii        <\/p>\n
(4) The _  ‘may, by order
\nV  after: ‘giving: ” — the’, ‘licence  opportunity of
\nsuch licence to shift the<\/p>\n
location’ of ‘any <\/p>\n
(a)_. _, With”  vievr”‘.to”‘”secure the convenience,<\/p>\n
1 rnoraiity,.. tranquility, decency or safety of<\/p>\n
 3-jthe”–public ofcompliance of the provisions of
\n_V thesvevrules; or<\/p>\n
~.(i3)r ‘W_he_re, after the issue of a licence, any
\n‘ religious institution or educational
\n“–institution is established or any office of the
\n” ,5?-tage Government or Central Government
\nor Local Authorities or a Hospital is opened
\nwithin the limits specified in this rule;\n<\/p>\n
rto any other suitable place, within such period,
\nnot exceeding three months as he may specify.”<\/p>\n
‘ I<\/p>\n
18. The impieading applicant is the one who has filed the<\/p>\n
complaint with the Deputy Commissioner. The impugned order<\/p>\n
directing the petitioner to shift the Bar and Restaurant <\/p>\n
other place so as to be brought within the radius of  ~<\/p>\n
the tourist spot in question is passed at_t.h.e__i4nst_ance’ a’nd’_’_ion=-,_ ii”<\/p>\n
the basis of the compiaint filed by the impzleadiiig a’ip.pl’i’c:ar’.t,V:”_i*hi’s?.:<\/p>\n
Court, by its order, dated 21.4.201b_v:’d.e’ferre’dtithe cohsidveratiioh
\nof the petitioner’s appiication tiii  of
\nthe petition. As the impleadi’h.g_a proper and
\nnecessary party, his imp–leadirig However,
\nit is made ciear     to rescind the
\nrenewal order  condition, it should not be
\nconstrued that ther.irnpieadihgapplicant has to be heard in the
\nmaii\u00a2”-\n<\/p>\n
  is aliowed accordingly with the aforesaid<\/p>\n
 obseryatioh;-3 a’nd’_~vi.iba.rti’es. l\\io order as to costs.<\/p>\n
 _ 20. “At vth’is~f}uncture, Sri Jaiprakash Reddy submits that<\/p>\n
tWythe.”‘p.eti.tionerV”h’as already paid the renewal fee for the entire<\/p>\n
 “‘~,1VVe’ari”A201O–11. However, the renewing of licence is tili<\/p>\n
 ?iG’.:i?;’20*i0. He prays for a direction to the respondent No.3 to<\/p>\n
QBH.\n<\/p>\n
ii
\nextend the renewal period tiil the closure of the current excise<\/p>\n
yeah<\/p>\n
21. The learned A.G.A. submits that the responde_nt.o:N\u00abol;3vv<\/p>\n
would consider the petitioner’s case for the exten__sion<\/p>\n
renewal period till the closure of this exc_i.se_year’in'”a~ccorda’nce~r._ ”<\/p>\n
with law and by imposing such conditions as’_”areAperniiissibis.Ai’n1i_i<\/p>\n
law. The respondent No.3 is directe’d__’t–o.. consider.the::’petiti.o.ner’sh<\/p>\n
case as expeditiously as possible and_._i5%3ss the necessaryi orders
\nwithin one week from today.”=ilsieejdiefss, to-Vfoilzjserve that if the<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 passesthe fresh Irene.wa_l’  extends the<\/p>\n
period till thezvvcllosureifof  y’ear,Wit is always open to him
\nto impose suchiconditions’ uas.blarej’p\u00abewi*missibie in law.\n<\/p>\n
22. , Further,  theivlexpiry of the renewal period<\/p>\n
 the ‘”pe_titionVe’r”‘has been running his business by<\/p>\n
 virtues-oi thle’ i.nte%rirn”r-oirders granted and extended from time to ‘<\/p>\n
 by  The petitioner is permitted to run his<\/p>\n
 for”aV__AAi”urther period of one week from today. The<\/p>\n
‘”‘-,34’continu,a’tion’.-‘or otherwise of the petitioner running the business<\/p>\n
 wouid depend on the outcome of the order to be<\/p>\n
:Vtpa’s–sed by the respondent No.3 within one week.<\/p>\n
HEM.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, nothing<\/p>\n
survives for the consideration of Misc.W.6898\/10 for <\/p>\n
stay. It is therefore dismissed as having become unneces’sar\u00a7}V; <\/p>\n
24. This petition is ailowed accord1.}ngEy,.4d\u00e9Ai$io”.ord.er.:<\/p>\n
COStS.\n<\/p>\n
bvr\/ MD<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25?” DAY or AUGUST 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. H1NcH1G.E:iI’_,jiA _ BETWEEN: M. Prakash, S\/o Muraiyappa, Age 35 years, R\/at 060.1660, Behind Vani Talkies, […]<\/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-48612","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 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\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-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=\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-26T18:01:16+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T18:01:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1804,\"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\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T18:01:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 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\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-26T18:01:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T18:01:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010"},"wordCount":1804,"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\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010","name":"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T18:01:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-prakash-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/48612","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=48612"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48612\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48612"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48612"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48612"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}