Dismissed

Sri Anantharaj Rao K v. Smt P C Shailaja

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2020CCC/1627/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court petition (CCC) for disobedience of an order dated February 18, 2019, the high court held that the respondent had complied with the direction to consider representations and pass a speaking order via an order dated June 27, 2019. Consequently, the present contempt proceedings were dropped as they no longer arose.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings are dropped as the respondent has complied with the order. No opinion expressed on the merits of the complied order.

Sri Anantharaj Rao K Vs Smt P C Shailaja — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

C.C.C. NO.1627 OF 2019 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. ANANTHARAJ RAO K SON OF LATE SUBBARAYA RAO

¶11

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. “PRIYADARSHI”, P.O.KATEEL, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 148.

¶12

SRI. AJARU NAGARAJA RAYA SON OF LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT “AJJARU HOUSE” P.O.KATEEL, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 148.

¶13

... COMPLAINANTS

¶14

(BY SRI B.SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. P.C.SHAILAJA COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA, TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶17

... ACCUSED (BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)

¶18

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SUMMONING THE ACCUSED BEFORE THIS COURT TO ANSWER THE ABOVE CHARGES AND AFTER HEARING, BE PLEASED TO PUNISH FOR THE GROSS AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AND CONTEMPT OF COURT VIOLATING THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.12859/2018 AND 14532/2018(GM-R/C) PASSED THIS COURT ANNEXURE – A.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Complainants who are writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.12859/2018 and 14532/2018 have alleged that order passed on 18.02.2019 in said writ petitions have been wilfully disobeyed by the respondent herein. The order passed in the aforesaid writ petition reads:

¶23

“In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners if not already decided by a speaking order affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.”

¶24

¶25

A plain reading of the above order/direction would indicate that 2^nd respondent therein, who is the respondent in this proceedings was required to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner if same had not been already decided and was required to pass a speaking order after affording opportunity to all the parties within a period of three months.

¶26

Learned Government Advocate has made

¶27

available copy of the order dated 27.06.2019 passed by Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat whereunder an order to appoint the administrator has been passed. In view of the same, direction issued by the learned Single Judge stands complied. Though learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent would contend that said order has been challenged in W.P.No.50027/2019, whereunder an order came to be passed directing the respondents therein not to precipitate the matter pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2019, we are not examining the

¶28

¶29

said issue since consideration of such plea would be outside the scope of present contempt proceedings. In the light of representation submitted by the complainants having been considered and an order having already been passed on 27.06.2019 continuation of present contempt proceedings would not arise. Hence, contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶30

We have not expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the order dated 27.06.2019 and it is open to the parties to urge their respective contentions in the event of same being challenged.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri Anantharaj Rao K v. Smt P C Shailaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anantharaj Rao K v. Smt P C Shailaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kumar Vs Sri. T.Raghavendra

Sri.T.S. Ramaprasad Vs Dr S Selvakumar

Sri Thagadaiah Vs Dr S Selvakumar

Sri. John David Vs State Bank of India

Sri. S.V. Ramaswamy Vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Sri.S.v.Ramaswamy Vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.