This court, hearing a contempt petition alleging violation of prior orders restricting municipal market space allotments, observed that no direction was issued restraining the accused from carrying on business. Consequently, the court held that a separate legal proceeding is appropriate if the action is illegal and disposed of the contempt petition.
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 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY CCC NO.300/2020 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN
2
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND
3
R/O SHOP NO.234, C BLOCK WHOLESALE FRUITS AND VEGETABLE WHOLESALE VENDORS JAYACHAMARAJENDRA MARKET BANGALORE-560002
5 . SRI B H ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS THE COMMISSIONER. B.B.M.P., N R SQUARE BANGALORE-560002
…ACCUSED
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO PUNISH ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 AS THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DATED 14.02.2018 IN W.P.NOS.48310-48315/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO AS PER THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AS THEIR ACT IS NOTHING BUT PURPOSEFULLY DISOBEYING THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THIS COURT.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The breach alleged in this contempt petition is of the orders dated 14th February 2018 and 11th March 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.48310-48315/2017. The present complainants had challenged the allotment of open spaces in the municipal market made to the first to fourth accused herein by filing the said writ petitions. The said four accused were the fifth to eighth respondents in the said writ petitions. The first order dated 14th February 2018 records the statement of the learned counsel appearing for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to take further action and submit a status report. The order dated 11th March 2019 disposes of the petitions by holding that the same have become infructuous. The reason for holding the writ petitions as infructuous was that the allotments made in favour of the fifth to eighth respondents in the writ petitions were cancelled.
5
Court restraining the accused from carrying on the business. Even assuming that the action of the accused of carrying on the business is otherwise illegal, this is not a case where action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be initiated for civil contempt. If according to the case of the complainants, the action of the accused of continuing the business is illegal, they are free to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
survive and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
bkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged continuance of business by accused after cancellation of allotment amounts to contempt of court requiring punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act?
Whether the absence of a specific restraining order in the impugned orders negates the grounds for initiating civil contempt proceedings?
Sri B Raviprakash
Sri N S K Traders
K Gopal
Sri N Seenappa
Sri H N Ajaz Ahamed
Sri Murali
Abhay S. Oka
S. VishwaJith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
