Dismissed

Smt Mahalakshmi v. Smt. M.S. Archana

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021CCC/175/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an order dated 16.08.2019, the Court noted a belated compliance filed in November 2020. Finding no explanation for the delay, the Court imposed Rs.10,000 costs on the State instead of initiating contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; Second respondent (State) ordered to pay costs of Rs.10,000 to complainants.

Smt Mahalakshmi Vs Smt. M.S. Archana — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

C.C.C.NO.175 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHALAKSHMI W/O NINGACHARI AGE: 58 YEARS BANDI BHEEDI HANDIVARU POST CHIKKARAYYANA CHATRA HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 302 2 . SAROJAMMA W/O SIDDACHAR FWS: 54 YEARS KAPANIGOWDANNA DODDI YADAMARANAHALLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117

¶10

3 . NEELAMMA W/O DASACHAR AGED: 47 YEARS MAGHIMANAHALLI YADAMARANAHALLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMNAGAR DISTRICT - 562 117

¶11

... COMPLAINANTS (BY SHRI. RANGANATH .S. JOIS, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . SMT. M.S. ARCHANA, I.A.S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF FORESTS RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RAMNAGAR - 571 511

¶15

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST (ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY) M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

... ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SHRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA)

¶18

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HONB'LE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED INCLUDING THE ACTION FOR CONTEMPT AND WILL FUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 MADE IN W.P.NO.12718/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THEREBY PUNISH THE ACCUSED.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Earlier in the day when the petition was called out, the

¶23

counsel for the complainants was present but was not audible. After a pass over when the case is called, he is not present.

¶24

The breach alleged is of the order dated 16^th August 2019 which ought to have been complied with within two months from 9^th September 2019. By passing an order as late as on 30^th November 2020, now there is a belated

¶25

¶26

compliance. A copy of the order dated 30^th November 2020 has been produced along with the affidavit of the accused. There is absolutely no explanation why the accused waited till 30^th November 2020 when the order ought to have been complied with within two months from 9^th September 2019. There is absolutely no attempt made to explain the delay.

¶27

In view of the belated compliance, though this is not a case for taking further action under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971, the State will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

¶28

Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of. The second respondent shall pay the costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the complainants within a period of six weeks from today.

¶29

For reporting compliance, the petition shall be listed on 5^th March 2021.

¶30

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Smt Mahalakshmi v. Smt. M.S. Archana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahalakshmi v. Smt. M.S. Archana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sai Keshava Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Tipper Lorry Owners Association Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S a M Constructions Vs Smt Gayathri

K L Javaregowda Vs Smt K L Taneja

Sri Anjanappa Vs Sri R Anil Kumar

Sri v Anjanappa Vs Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas