Dismissed

Sri D v. Venkataramaiah v Sri. P. Nagaprashanth

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2021CCC/125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, in contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of an order, noted that the impugned order was belatedly complied with by the accused Tahasildar after tendering an apology. The court held that further proceedings were inapt but awarded costs to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; Costs of Rs.20,000 awarded to complainant against State Government.

Sri D v Venkataramaiah Vs Sri. P… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PRESENT

¶3

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

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

C.C.C NO. 125 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI D.V. VENKATARAMAIAH S/O LATE D.V. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.327 DEVANARAYANASWAMY STREET KANDAVARPET CHICKBALLAPURA -562 101

¶9

... COMPLAINANT

¶10

(BY SHRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. P. NAGAPRASHANTH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT AGED ABOUT MAJOR TAHASILDAR CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. ... ACCUSED

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDINGS DR. B.R AMEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

(BY SHRI V. SREENIDHI, AGA)

¶15

... RESPONDENT NO.2 ---

¶16

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE

¶17

¶18

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.25831/2018 AND W.P.NO.26677/2018 DATED 20.03.2020 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT & ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The order of which breach is committed ought to have been complied with on or before 30^th September 2020. As per the affidavit of compliance filed by the Tahasildar, by passing an order dated 1^st June 2021, the order of which breach is alleged has been belatedly complied with.

¶22

The present contempt petition was filed on 1^st February 2021. On 16^th March 2021, time of ten days was sought by the learned Additional Government Advocate for reporting compliance with the order of which breach has been alleged. Even on 31^st March 2021, time of ten days was sought and was granted. Only after contempt notice was issued on 16^th April 2021 to the accused that compliance has been made as late as on 1^st June 2021.

¶23

In the affidavit filed today, perhaps the only reason given by the accused is that he assumed charge of the post

¶24

¶25

on 27^th April 2021. Though he has tendered an unconditional apology, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay from 16^th March 2021. He has not explained why his predecessor could not comply with the order.

¶26

In view of belated compliance, further proceedings will have to be dropped. However, the State Government will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-.

¶27

Accordingly, we pass the following order.

¶28

(i) By accepting the apology tendered by Shri Ganapathi Shastri, Tahasildar , Chikkaballapura Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, the notice issued is discharged and the contempt petition is disposed of;

¶29

(ii) We direct the State Government to pay costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶30

(iii) It will be always open for the complainant to challenge the order dated 1^st June 2021 in accordance with law;

¶31

¶32

(iv) For reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the petition shall be listed on 9^th July 2021 under the caption of Order.

¶33

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

AHB

Sri D v. Venkataramaiah v Sri. P. Nagaprashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D v. Venkataramaiah v Sri. P. Nagaprashanth

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

Manjunath R Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kumaraiah @ Kumar Vs Tabasum Zahera

Sri S a Muniraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Professional Global Constructions Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

K N Venugopal Vs Smt Srilakshmi

Sri Gopal Vs M/S Acharaya Patashala