JOIN USThe Advocate General, Ravivarma Kumar, will not argue in the petition seeking action on the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) report on the KPSC scandal during recruitments in 1999, 2000 and 2004, the State government informed the High Court on Tuesday.
The submission was made after the government counsel R Devdas suggested that someone else assist the court as the AG had appeared for some candidates and the petitioners.
Assistance in PILs
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna has asked the Advocate General Ravivarma Kumar to assist the court in dealing with some “confusing” public interest litigation (PIL) petitions.
During the hearing of a petition by City-based advocate L Rajanna who sought the constitution of a special investigation team, the bench noted, “Many advocates are coming up with such cases. We need your suggestions in dealing with them. The initial idea of the PIL is to ensure that causes like human rights violations or some thing that affects the public at large are prevented. Advocates being knowledgeable were allowed to file cases. Today the advocates are involved in the cases even when they have nothing to do with the matter.”
Citing the S P Gupta case on the appointment of judges, the Bench said, “Such cases were allowed because it was concerned with the Judiciary, but today there are petitions challenging the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. How can they be PILs?” The bench sought the AG’s assistance and adjourned the matter.
More time sought
The Court has adjourned the hearing on a petition by bar and restaurant owners who sought to prevent the police intervention in their day-to-day business.
Hearing a petition by the Bangalore Ladies Working Bars and Restaurant Owners’ Association, who had moved the High Court seeking its intervention to ensure the smooth functioning of bars and restaurants, Justice A S Bopanna adjourned the matter after the State government sought more time to frame the guidelines.
The petitioners had submitted that police cannot prevent them from running business. They stated that such intervention was “unjust, arbitrary and illegal” as their business were licensed. They sought directions to the police to stop interfering in their businesses, pointing out that no case was registered against any bar or restaurant.