Disposed

Sri M B Ravishankar v. Sri Gurudath Heggade, IAS

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2020CCC/452/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal contempt petition challenged the non-compliance of a writ order directing the Mysuru Mahanagara Palike to register properties. The Bench opined that contempt is discretionary and observed that the respondents had reconsidered the case. Thus, the petition was disposed of without penal action, leaving the legal challenge to the reconsideration open.

What did the court decide?

The criminal contempt petition was disposed of; no contempt proceedings were initiated.

Sri M B Ravishankar Vs Sri Gurudath Heggade, IAS — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

C.C.C. NO.452 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI M.B.RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE B.BORANNA AGED 41 YEARS.

¶11

SRI M.B.VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE B.BORANNA AGED 37 YEARS.

¶12

SRI M.B.MAHESH CHANDRA S/O LATE B.BORANNA AGED 39 YEARS.

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.53/1 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570 009.

¶14

… COMPLAINANTS (BY SHRI M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI S.RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI GURUDATH HEGGADE, IAS, THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶17

¶18

NEW SAYYAJI ROAD MYSURU-570 001.

¶19

SRI SHIVANANDA MURTHY, KAS, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, SHARADEVINAGAR ZONE 3, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD MYSURU-570 022.

¶20

… ACCUSED ---

¶21

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF Court PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 5.3.2020 PASSED IN W.P. No.34605/2019 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND ETC.

¶22

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The breach alleged is of the order dated 5^th March, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the complainants-petitioners. A writ of mandamus was prayed for in a writ petition directing the respondents-(Mysuru

¶25

¶26

Mahanagara Palike (for short, “the said Palike ”) to enter the names of the complainants in the property register maintained by the said Palike and collect taxes.

¶27

It is noted in the order dated 5^th March, 2020 that during

¶28

the pendency of the petition, the said Palike issued an endorsement asking the complainants to furnish the documents such as tax receipt, single site drawing/plan and valuation letter. In paragraph 2 of the order, the learned Single Judge has noted the argument made on behalf of the said Palike that in similar cases, Palike has not insisted on production of the documents. In paragraph 4, the learned Single Judge directed the Additional/Assistant Commissioner of the said Palike to reexamine the case of the complainants with reference to Annexure-J to the petition and redress the grievances of the complainants. The learned Single Judge directed that if the petitioners in the writ petition are required to produce a particular document, the second respondent therein shall quote the relevant provision of law so as to enable the petitioners to

¶29

¶30

furnish the documents. The learned Single Judge also took note of the argument of discrimination.

¶31

On 6^th June, 2020, a notice/endorsement was issued by

¶32

the zonal officer of the said Palike . For the reasons recorded therein, it was observed that the Khatha in the name of the complainants cannot be registered. It is observed therein that the complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the conversion order and that the layout is not developed by making roads, sewerage arrangements, etc.

¶33

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the complainants is that there is non-compliance of the directions issued in the order dated 5^th March, 2020 and the respondentsaccused cannot be allowed to go scot-free, as they have committed a breach of the said order.

¶34

We have considered the submissions. The direction issued, in substance, in the order dated 5^th March, 2020 is that the case of the complainants for entering their names in the property register should be reconsidered. The communication dated 6^th June, 2020 records that the case of the complainants

¶35

¶36

has been reconsidered. If according to the complainants, the grounds or reasons stated in the said communication are erroneous or illegal, their remedy is to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶37

Contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is always discretionary. Considering the facts of this case, we are of the view that this is not a case where an action can be initiated for committing a civil contempt.

¶38

7. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of. We

¶39

make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not prevent the complainants from challenging the communication dated 6^th June, 2020 in accordance with law. All the contentions in that behalf are kept open.

¶40

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

vgh*

Sri M B Ravishankar v. Sri Gurudath Heggade, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M B Ravishankar v. Sri Gurudath Heggade, IAS

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

Sri Durga Prasad Vs Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel

Mr. John Gabriel D Silva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R a Pradeep Vs Sri N Murari

Mr. G Vaman Pai Vs Mr. Naveen Prabhu

M K Devendra Kumar Vs Dr.Venkatesh

B Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka