Dismissed

Sri. Paramesh v. Sri. Bagadi Gautham

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2019CCC/1752/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of contingent charges filed under the Contempt of Courts Act concerning the rejection of a representation. The court held that since the competent authority considered and rejected the representation, no ground existed to continue proceedings, and the matter was dropped.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; complainant at liberty to challenge endorsement dated 20.11.2019.

Sri. Paramesh Vs Sri. Bagadi Gautham — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

C.C.C. No.1752 OF 2019 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. PARAMESH S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BYRALLI VILLAGE DEVALAKERE POST HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN – 573 165.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SANDESH, ADVOCATE SRI. MANU SHANKAR S.S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. BAGADI GAUTHAM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS CHIKKAMAGALURU CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶15

... ACCUSED

¶16

(BY SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA)

¶17

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HIS WILLFUL DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.

¶18

¶19

27666/2019 DATED: 04.07.2019 AND TO PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

We have heard Sri.Sandesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Manushankar S.S, for complainant and Sri.V.Sreenidhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for accused.

¶23

Learned Single Judge by order dated 04.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.27666/2019(GM-RES) (Annexure-C) had directed the competent authority to consider the representation of petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period of two months.

¶24

Learned Government Advocate has filed the counter affidavit of respondent and having perused said affidavit, we notice that competent authority namely, Deputy Commissioner on receipt of order passed in the above writ petition has

¶25

¶26

immediately called for opinion from the Police Department regarding involvement of the licensee (complainant) in any criminal cases. On receipt of police report which did not disclose any criminal proceedings pending against licensee and there being no complaint of misuse of weapon and there being no case of violation of conditions appended to the weapon license as well as criminal cases registered against licensee having ended in filing of ‘B’ report, representation of complainant has been rejected and endorsement to the said effect has also been issued by the respondent to complainant on 20.11.2019. Copy of the same is appended to the affidavit filed.

¶27

Thus, direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the competent authority was only to consider the representation of petitioner and same having received the attention of the competent authority and rejected, we do not find any good ground to continue with the present proceedings and same is dropped.

¶28

¶29

However, complainant would be at liberty to

¶30

challenge the endorsement dated 20.11.2019 in the

manner known to law.

SD/JUDGE

SD/JUDGE

Sri. Paramesh v. Sri. Bagadi Gautham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Paramesh v. Sri. Bagadi Gautham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nandeesh G Sagar Vs Sri Umashankar H M

Sri B M Rajanna Vs Sri L K Atheeq I as

Mr. Thomas Vargeese Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Sunder Babu Vs M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited

M/S Rvns Exim (P) Ltd. Vs Indian Bank

Mr Munegowda Vs Mr Thejas Kumar