Contempt proceedings initiated by complainants for disobeying a writ direction to the municipal commissioner. The High Court noted compliance via memo and dropped proceedings without addressing merits.
Contempt proceedings dropped; liberty to challenge order dated 19.08.2019 reserved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
C.C.C. No.1490/2019
BETWEEN:
2 . SUKUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O RAMANNA SHETTY. BOTH PETITIONER/COMPLAINANTS NO.1 AND 2 R/O DWARAKA HOUSE PERALADKA ROAD, KALLIMAR PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.
... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ROOPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PUTTUR, D.K. - 574 201.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI.A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TRY THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES COMMITTED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT BY WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED:29.07.2019, IN W.P.NO.32909910/2018 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This contempt proceedings have been initiated by petitioners in W.P.Nos.32909-910/2018 alleging that order dated 29.07.2019 has not been complied by respondent No.1. Direction issued in said writ petitions to first respondent herein reads:
“6. In the light of the above, the petitions require to be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the reply by the petitioners and thereafter, to take action in accordance with law, expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of certified
3
copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the petitions.”
by the learned Single Judge, first respondent was required to consider the reply of petitioner and thereafter had to take action in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Reserving liberty to the complainant to challenge
the above said order dated 19.08.2019, if so advised and
4
without expressing any opinion with regard to merits of said order, this contempt proceedings stands dropped.
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
DR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent complied with the direction to take action within three months.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashalatha W/o Sukumar Shetty
Sukumaru Shetty
Roopa Shetty
A. Aravind Kumar
S. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
