Single judge of Karnataka HC Criminal Contest Court disposed of a contempt petition for delay in decision on a representation. Court held explanation (pandemic) insufficient but imposed costs on State instead of imprisonment.
Contempt petition disposed with condition of Rs. 25,000 costs payable by State within one month.
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 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
C.C.C. NO. 183 OF 2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
NARAYANASWAMY S/O RAMANAYAK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.15, SAMPURANA NILAYA 9TH A CROSS, SHANKRAPPA GARDEN MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-560 023.
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SHRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
... ACCUSED
… PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DT.25.02.2021)
(BY SHRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO HOLD THE ACCUSED HEREIN GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P. NO.18318/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF SIX MONTHS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, AND TO DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P. NO.18318/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS WHICH ARE JUST AND NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND ETC.
THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the accused.
"2. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions by the Officer present in the Court submits that the said representation will be considered in accordance with law based on the records. His submission is placed on record.
3. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the Joint Director of Land Records to consider petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2008 in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
It must be noted here that a representation was made by the complainant way back on 13th November, 2018 which was kept pending. One year after the said representation was made, the aforesaid order dated 28th November, 2019 was passed. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made a representation dated 11th December, 2019 to the accused by which the said order was
4
communicated. Thus, the representation was required to be decided within a period of four months from 11th December, 2019. However, as per the affidavit filed by Smt. P.S.Kusumalatha, the representation was decided on 23rd July, 2021. Thus, there is a delay of more than fifteen months in complying with the order.
5
the affidavit. A general explanation is offered that the entire office of the accused was busy in dealing with the pandemic of COVID-19. This excuse cannot be accepted. Ultimately, we are dealing with a case where a representation made by the complainant in November 2018 has been decided in July 2021.
ORDER
(i) The contempt petition is disposed of subject to the condition of the third respondent paying costs of Rs.25,000/(rupees twenty five thousand) to the complainant within one month from today;
6
(ii) It will be always open for the third respondent to recover the amounts of costs from the officers who are responsible for the delay;
(iii) It will be open for the complainant to challenge the endorsement dated 23rd July, 2021 in accordance with law;
(iv) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 15th September, 2021.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
vgh*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused are guilty of contempt of court for delay of over fifteen months in complying with a prior High Court order directing decision on a representation.
Whether costs should be awarded despite belated compliance with the impugned order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narayanaswamy S/o Ramanayak
Smt. P.S. Kusumalatha
State of Karnataka
Shivaraju
Abhay S. Oka
N.S. Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
