Dismissed

Smt. Fakiravva W/O Malleshapa Talawar v. Sri. B. Bheemappa

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2018CCC/100054/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged a delay in complying with a prior court order. The respondent provided an affidavit explaining the delay as non-intentional due to administrative issues. The court accepted the apology, condoned the delay, and dropped the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The delay was condoned, the apology was accepted, and the contempt proceeding was dropped as the order was complied with.

Smt. Fakiravva W/O Malleshapa Talawar Vs Sri. B… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. S. BELLUNKE

¶7

C.C.C.No.100054/2018 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.FAKIRAVVA W/O MALLESHAPA TALAWAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs., SRI. NINGAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA TALAWAR @ WALIKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER, R/O HUBLI, TQ. HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. ... COMPLAINANT

¶10

(BY SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI B.BHEEMAPPA, (K.A.S.) COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.55, ABHAY COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. ... ACCUSED

¶13

(BY SRI RAVIRAJ C.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO INITIATE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS DATED 22.06.2017 MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.103081/2016 (GM-SLUM) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.

¶16

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Learned counsel for accused has filed an

¶19

affidavit of the accused stating that the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.103081/2016 (GM-SLUM) disposed off on 22.06.2017 has been complied with, although there is an unintentional delay in complying with the same.

¶20

Learned counsel further submits that

¶21

having regard to the reasons assigned in the affidavit, the delay in complying with the order of this Court may be condoned and the unconditional apology of the accused may be accepted and

¶22

¶23

contempt proceeding as against accused may be dropped.

¶24

By order dated 22.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.103081/2016, this Court had directed the accused, respondent No.2 in the writ petition, to consider the representation of the complainant as per Annexure-F in the writ petition within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The accused has stated that the copy of the order of this Court was received by him from the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing, Bengaluru on 11.09.2017. Thereafter Assistant Executive Engineer, Dharwad Division was directed by the accused to ascertain whether the land in question, bearing Sy.No.37/B measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, was required to be acquired for improvement and development of the slum and also on consulting the Tahasildar to submit a report as to how the name of the Slum Board was

¶25

¶26

entered in the record of rights by deleting the name of the complainant. That the Assistant Executive Engineer, Dharwad did not submit any report. In the meanwhile, accused retired from service on 31.05.2018 that there was no regular Commissioner for the Board. That Sri Shivamurthy, IAS, Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board was placed in-charge of the Slum Board and he took charge on 01.06.2018. As the said officer had to lookafter the affairs of both Karnataka Housing Board as well as the Slum Board, immediate steps could not be taken to consider the representation made by the complainant herein. But thereafter, steps have been taken and a communication has been issued to the complainant herein on 14.08.2018. In the circumstances, accused states that the delay in compliance is not intentional, but due to bonafide reasons and he tenders his unconditional apology

¶27

¶28

for not complying with the direction issued by this Court in time.

¶29

We find that since there has been

¶30

compliance of the direction issued by this Court and the delay for doing so has been explained by the accused, which in our view is on account of bonafide reasons, we condone the delay in complying with the direction of this Court and accept the unconditional apology of the accused. Since there has been compliance of the direction issued by this Court, the contempt petition would not survive for further consideration. The proceeding is hence dropped.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

EM/CLK

Smt. Fakiravva W/O Malleshapa Talawar v. Sri. B. Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fakiravva W/O Malleshapa Talawar v. Sri. B. Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Siddalingeshwara Vidya Peetha (R) Vs Smt. Shalini Rajanesh

Venkappa Vs Smt.Ningawwa

Shri. Basappa Kuri S/O. Siddappa Vs Mr. Gollar Sheenaiaha (Incharge)

Sri Rameshagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Yasmeen D/O Aslam Shaikh Vs the Commissioner of Police

Furkhan S/O Khaleell Ahmed Vs Smt. Shilpa Sintri