K PUSHPALATHA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the reason for which the instant petition was entertained and the manner and extent to which it is being considered is already articulated in the order dated 06.10.2017 passed in this proceedings. In that view, I do not find it necessary to advert to those aspects of the matter though, this order is in the nature of disposal of the writ petition. The said order dated 06.10.2017 shall therefore be considered as a part of this order.

(2.) In that light, the report filed by the Court Commissioner is available before the Court. The report as submitted is elaborate along with the documents to support the observation as made by the Commissioner in his report.

(3.) At this stage, what is also necessary to be taken note is that the status report as filed by the learned Government Advocate had indicated that the petitioner had identified certain articles which was available in the premises before the respondent-Police was constrained to lock the premises in question as it was beyond their power to decide the matter. In that background, a perusal of the report submitted by the Commissioner in fact would indicate that such observation is the factual situation and it is fortified by the report of the Commissioner. In that regard, a perusal of the documents produced along with the report of the Commissioner and the elaborate report submitted by the Commissioner would leave no doubt to the fact that the petitioner and her son were in possession of the premises and still possess the keys of the cupboards/almirahs which are inside the premises. The things which are available in the premises also belong to the petitioner and the husband of the petitioner late Manjunatha Gowda.