K M MUNISWAMY REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in these writ petitions, petitioners challenge their inclusion in the 'rowdy list' by the police, and the basic contention pertains to the constitutional validity of the order No. 1059 in the Mysore police manual (volume ii). These have come up before us on a reference made by one of us expressing doubt about the correctness of an earlier view taken by another judge in the case reported in Venkatachalapathy v State of Karnataka, ILR 1988 kar. 1261.

(2.) in venkatachatapathy's case, the learned judge referred to order No. 1059 as it stood prior to the year 1970; without noticing its substitution by the inspector general of police's order No. 33/mpm/70, dated 8-4-1970 (published in Mysore police gazette, dated 2-5-1970). While the earlier order No. 1059 had only four clauses (a) to (d), the substituted order has 19 paragraphs containing elaborate procedure as to various registers and the action to be taken to watch and prevent a rowdy from committing any offence or disturb public peace. Present order No. 1059 is quoted below exhaustively, which reads: "order No. 1059"

(3.) in venkatachalapathy's case, it was held that entry in the rowdy list off ends the fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence invalid; it was also held that the earlier order No. 1059 had no statutory source and was merely a departmental instructions. Since no fundamental right can be abridged or taken away without the authority of law, the said order was held as illegal.