SRINGERI PRITHVIRAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband and father of petitioners 1 (a), (b)and (c) was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 116/6, Koramangala having purchased the same in the year 1982 from one K. M. Govinda Reddy. He contends in the writ petition that he had put up a commercial complex in the said land. However, it came to be demolished by the Bangalore Development authority on the ground that the construction was made encroaching the BDA's property. Later, according to the petitioner, the commissioner of the BDA Sri Jayakar jerome-2nd respondent herein, had given a press statement as under ; "this is the first time in the history of the State such huge unauthorised structure has been demolished. The 40 Ft. Prithvi Mansion had come upon a BDA site measuring 200 x 200 ft. near Koramangala Police Station. The value of the site is estimated to be more than 3 crores is noted. The building owner Mr. Prithvi Raj had approached the Court seeking stay against demolition. However, the decision of the Court went in favour of BDA in every case. On 45 cases, the site owner has approached even the High Court and in 9 cases, the Court imposed costs on him. Finally today we went ahead with the demolition". Feeling this statement was made with an intention to defame him, the said Prithvi raj made an application to the State Government purporting to be under Sec. 197, criminal Procedure Code for sanction to prosecute the Commissioner Mr. Jaykar jerome for criminal defamation. The State government by an order dated 9-11-2001 Annexure X has rejected the request of the petitioner. The order is questioned in this petition.

(2.) THE only contention of the petitioner is that the order at Annexure X is hot a speaking order, inasmuch as, no reasons are furnished by the State Government for rejecting the sanction prayed for. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under Sec. 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the state was obliged to give reasons. Having not done so, the order is liable to be struck down.

(3.) IN reply, Sri C. B. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submitted that under Sec. 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the State is not adjudicating any rights of the parties nor by passing of an order under Sec. 197 any interest of the petitioner can be said to be affected. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.