Sri. Rakesh Malli vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Rakesh Malli, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada District) to consider his representation dated 01.04.2023 for police protection. This protection had been granted earlier but was withdrawn due to non-payment of fees. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in W.P. No. 15074/2020, which was disposed of on 24.02.2022, directing the respondents to consider his representation upon clearance of arrears and undertaking to pay lawful charges. The petitioner claims to have paid the required fees, including GST, and produced documents to this effect. The Additional Government Advocate for the respondents admitted that the entire fee for police protection has now been received.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the primary issue was the non-payment of fees for police protection, which had led to its withdrawal. Since the petitioner had now paid the entire fee, including GST, and this was admitted by the respondents, the previous order of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 15074/2020 became applicable. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's representation for police protection expeditiously, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The reasoning was based on the fact that the obstacle to granting protection (non-payment of fees) had been removed, and the fundamental right to life under Article 21 was a crucial consideration. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection in accordance with law, considering his previous representations and the withdrawal of protection due to non-payment of fees? (Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Law relating to police protection). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that his fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates police protection, especially since he had previously been granted it and has now cleared all outstanding dues, including GST, for such protection. He relies on the previous order of the High Court in W.P. No. 15074/2020, which directed consideration of his request upon payment of arrears. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, initially opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was a rowdy sheeter and that providing protection to everyone was impossible, with threat perception being a key factor. However, they later admitted that the entire fee for the police protection has been received.