Dismissed

Dr. S. Shobha v. Mr. Manjunatha Prasad I.A.S

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2020CCC/1202/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench considered a contempt petition filed against the BBMP Commissioner for alleged non-compliance of a High Court order. Finding the petitioner had been granted leave to file a claim for compensation and that such proceedings were pending, the court held further notice was futile and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application rejected; contempt proceedings disposed of.

Dr. S. Shobha Vs Mr. Manjunatha Prasad I.A.S — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH C.C.C. No.1202/2019 (CIVIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. S. SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE DR. JANARDHANA MURTHY R/AT NO.5, 17^TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, SREENAGAR BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶9

... COMPLAINANT

¶10

(BY DR. S. SHOBHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. MANJUNATHA PRASAD I.A.S AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE, N.R. SQUARE HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶13

…RESPONDENT /ACCUSED

¶14

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT AGAINST THE REFUSED TO CORPORATION IN VIEW OF NON COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONB’LE HIGH COURT IN CCC 1458/2016.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard Dr.S.Shobha, party appearing in person.

¶19

There is a delay of 57 days in filing this contempt petition. Hence, an interlocutory applicationI.A.No.1/2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In order to satisfy ourselves as to whether any fruitful purpose would be served in ordering notice on I.A.No.1/2019, we have looked into merits of the case and find that present proceedings initiated is not liable to be proceeded further, inasmuch as, petitioner is alleging there is non compliance of the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in CCC No.1458/2016 which is at Annexure-A and there is no such violation for reasons indicated below.

¶20

A plain reading of order alleged to have been violated by respondents would indicate that petitioner herein had initiated said contempt proceedings against respondents therein alleging there has been violation of the order dated 30.05.2016 passed in

¶21

¶22

W.P.No.51144/2014. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.04.2018 dropped the said contempt proceedings on account of the petitioner/complainant having been permitted to file a petition within 30 days before the Land Acquisition Officer, BBMP making a claim for payment of appropriate compensation and also on account of submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for BBMP that it would have no objection for determination for just and fair compensation payable to the complaint and also determination of actual extent of land that has been utilized by the BBMP. Hence, permitting the complainant to file petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 before Land Acquisition Officer, BBMP, contempt proceedings came to be dropped.

¶23

Smt.Dr.S.Shobha, party appearing in person would fairly submit that pursuant to such leave having been granted, she has already filed a application before Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference and same has been referred to the civil Court. She would also

¶24

¶25

contend that still compensation has not been paid. If it is so, it is for her to work out her rights in pending reference proceedings in accordance with law. Question of initiating contempt proceedings against respondent would not arise and any such exercise undertaken by this Court would be an exercise in futility. Hence, we are of the considered view that issuance of notice on I.A.No.1/2019 would not serve any purpose much-less fruitful purpose. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is rejected consequently contempt proceedings stands disposed of.

¶26

SD/JUDGE SD/JUDGE

¶27

Dr. S. Shobha v. Mr. Manjunatha Prasad I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. S. Shobha v. Mr. Manjunatha Prasad I.A.S

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

Smt. R Padma Vs Mr. B H Anil Kumar

M/S Jsw Steel Limited Vs M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Bangalore Electricity Vs M/S Spml Infra Ltd.

Yogeesha Vs Sri Rajkumar Khatri

U S Rekha Vs P Vasanthkumar

Mahalakshmi N Vs P Vasanthkumar