STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PRAVEEN BHAI THOGADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Though by passage of time, the basic issues seem to have become infructuous, in view of the importance and recurring nature of the legal issues involved, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are taken up. For deciding the issues involved in the appeal the background facts, which are practically undisputed, run as follows :

(3.) The respondent by an order of Additional District Magistrate (in short the ADM), Dakshina Kannada was restrained from entering the said district and from participating in any function in the district for a period of 15 days i.e. from 10-2-2003 to 25-2-2003. The order was dated 7-2-2003. A function was organised at Mangalore on 13-2-2003 where several religious leaders were shown as the likely participants. On 7-2-2003, a permission for holding the meeting was obtained by the organisers from the District Magistrate, Mangalore. Permission was also granted by the police authorities and the Corporation. The ADM at this stage passed an order dated 7-2-2003 in MAG(Z) CR 352/2002-03.Dand restrained the respondent as aforesaid on the ground that the district had become communally sensitive and there were several communal clashes starting from 1988 resulting in several deaths and damage to public and private properties. It was indicated in the detailed order passed which was under challenge before the High Court of Karnataka that the respondent during his visit to another place on 18-12-2002, had delivered an inflammatory speech which incited communal feelings and the communal harmony was greatly affected. The ADM felt that a similar speech by the respondent would result in stoking communal feelings vitiating harmonious social and communal atmosphere. The respondent challenged the order in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) before the High Court taking the stand that the ADM had no jurisdiction, because he was not an Executive Magistrate or had not been conferred with powers of an Executive Magistrate. The respondent also took the stand that his speeches had nothing to do with any communal disharmony. They were made with reference to political issues which have been the subject matter of debate for several years. Only for political reasons a case was registered against him. The petition was resisted on several grounds : firstly it was pointed out that an alternate remedy was inbuilt under Section 144 of the Code and without exhausting that statutory remedy, the present respondent should not have rushed to the High Court for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. The stand of the present respondent that the time available was very short and result of the so-called alternate remedy would not have yielded any fruitful results is incorrect. Secondly, reference was made to several instances where on account of the action of the respondent, and his speeches and acts of organisers of the function there were communal clashes and the District Administration had to intervene to avoid disturbances of social tranquility and communal harmony.