Writ Petition No. 7464/2017 (GM-CPC). Case: K. Govindaraj Vs B.S. Yeddyurappa and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 7464/2017 (GM-CPC) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ravivarma Kumar, Sr. Counsel for R. Hemanth Raj, Advocate |
| Judges | B. Veerappa, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VIII Rule 1; Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 3, 3A; Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 227, 51A |
| Judgement Date | March 14, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
B. Veerappa, J.
-
The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed the present writ petition against the order dated 14.2.2017 made in O.S. No. 1080/2017 on the file of the LXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru issuing suit summons and emergent notice on I.A. to the defendants returnable by 16.3.2017.
-
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
-
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or any one by themselves or on their behalf from issuing and publishing any statements defamatory in nature in connection with any matter touching upon the plaintiff either through print or through electronic form contending that he is a dignified and respectable person commanding great respect in the society; that at present he is a Member of Legislative Council, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore; President of Karnataka Olympic Association; President of State Basketball Federation; and Parliamentary Secretary to Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. He has been involved in social work throughout his life and has been in public life for a long period of time. He is a very renowned personality known for his philanthropic activity as well as social service. There are number of people all across the State, who have been benefited by his activities and he has got great popular support throughout the State of Karnataka. He has contributed enormously for the development of sports activities in Karnataka.
-
It is the further contention of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1, who is the former Chief Minister of Karnataka and presently the National Vice President and State President of Bharatiya Jannata Party (BJP), on 10.2.2017 when he was addressing the reporters at Belagavi has leveled false and baseless allegations stating that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka had paid Rs. 1000/- Crores (Rupees One Thousand Crores) to the High Command of Indian National Congress Party to retain/acquire his post with the help of the plaintiff therein. The 1st defendant had falsely alleged that the Enforcement Directorate had summoned the plaintiff and had initiated inquiry in this regard and that the CBI would begin in a probe thereby creating a doubt in the minds of the people. He had also stated that the Income Tax Authorities have seized dairies in the vicinity of the plaintiff when the Income Tax Authorities have raided plaintiff.
-
The plaintiff further has contended that the allegations made by 1st defendant on and after 10.2.2017 which were reported, published and telecasted in several print (Newspapers) and electronic media (TV Channels) are that the plaintiff has acted as an agent/postman for making payment of Rs. 1000/-Crores (Rupees One Thousand Crores only) to the High Command of Indian National Congress by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka in order to retain his position; that a payment of Rs. 65 Crores (Rupees Six Five Crores) to the High Command of Indian National Congress with respect to construction of Steel Flyover was made through the plaintiff; that his allegations are based out of the information obtained from the "Diary" seized by the Enforcement Directorate during the raids made by the Department at the residence and the Office of the Plaintiff; that the Enforcement Directorate has summoned the plaintiff with respect to the above allegations and that an inquiry into the illegal Transfer of the Money will be initiated by CBI, etc. It is also further contended that the allegations made by defendant No. 1 on and after 10.2.2017 was reported, published and telecasted in several print (Newspapers) and electronic media (TV Channels) by defendant Nos. 2 to 16. It is further alleged in the plaint that though the plaintiff is a public servant, the report does not carry any news regarding the conduct of plaintiff in discharge of his public duty. The reports do not have any bearing on public good nor do they touch upon any public question. Defendant No. 1 is neither the agent of the Departments nor an investigating agency to make such statements on behalf of the concerned Departments. The lst defendant has revealed only false allegations to create political imbalance, tampering the image of the plaintiff to the public and unnecessarily creating a charge of corruption over the plaintiff. The malafide allegations made by the lst defendant against the plaintiff even without seeking any prior comments from the concerned authority about these issues shows his intent. For the purpose of publicity, the defendant colluding with Print and Electronic Media has made statements without any cogent evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial