Disposed

K N Venugopal v. Smt Srilakshmi

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2021CCC/185/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt petition against a Tahasildar for breaching a writ order. While finding the accused responsible for delay, the Court discharged the notice, imposed costs of Rs.30,000 on the State Government, and directed payment to the petitioners by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Notice of contempt discharged; State Government directed to pay costs of Rs.30,000 to petitioners by 12th July 2021.

K N Venugopal Vs Smt Srilakshmi — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

C.C.C NO.185 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K.N.VENUGOPAL

¶10

S/O K. RAMASWAMY MUDILIYAR AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶11

OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶12

SRI BYRAPPA

¶13

S/O DODDABACHAPPA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶15

BOTH ARE R/O YELLKUNTE VILLAGE

¶16

BEGUR HOBLI

¶17

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶18

... COMPLAINANTS

¶19

(BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT. SRILAKSHMI

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR

¶23

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN

¶24

K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 9

¶25

SMT. BHAGYA R

¶26

THE TAHSILDAR

¶27

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN

¶28

BANGALORE - 9

¶29

... ACCUSED

¶30

(BY SHRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA)

¶31

¶32

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH HER FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY VIOLATED THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P. No.8612/2020 DATED 17 JULY 2020.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A No.1 of 2021 for impleadment of the second accused is allowed. Necessary amendment shall be carried out within six weeks from today.

¶36

The breach alleged is of the judgment and order dated 17^th July 2020. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment and order reads thus:

¶37

"2.Learned AGA Sri. R.Srinivasa Gowda having initially opposed the Writ Petition, now fairly submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed by this court, petitioners' subject application will be considered, in accordance with law, subject to they producing any documents as may be required by the Tahasildar.

¶38

In the above circumstance, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent - Tahasildar to consider petitioners' subject application within a period of five weeks in terms of the order of the Asst. Commissioner and in accordance with law.

¶39

¶40

It is open to the respondent - Tahasildar to solicit any information or documents as are required for due consideration of petitioners' application; the respondent - Tahasildar shall pay Rs.1,000/- personally, to each of the petitioners for the delay of each week, till after consideration of their application is accomplished and also the result of such consideration is informed to them."

¶41

(underlines supplied)

¶42

Thus, the order of which breach is committed was passed on the basis of an express concession made by the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of Karnataka. In fact, paragraph 2 of the judgment and order notes that though initially the petition was opposed, later on, there was a concession made by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The order ought to have been complied with within five weeks from 17^th July 2020. The order was communicated by the complainants by their letter dated 24^th July 2020. There was not even a reply sent by the accused to the letter dated 24^th July 2020.

¶43

The present contempt petition was filed on 19^th February 2021. On 25^th February 2021, notice of the contempt petition was issued. On 31^st March 2021, time was granted to the learned Additional Government Advocate to report compliance. Only thereafter on 15^th April 2021, an endorsement was issued

¶44

¶45

by the accused. The order passed on 19^th April 2021 reads thus:

¶46

"The endorsement dated 15^th April 2021 is placed on record. However, the accused has not explained the delay in complying with the order of which breach is alleged. She has not complied with the second part of the order of payment of Rs.1,000/- personally to each of the . complainants for the delay of each week

¶47

To enable the accused to file an affidavit explaining the delay and to report compliance with rest of the directions, list the petition on 4^th June 2021."

¶48

(underlines supplied)

¶49

Not only that an affidavit explaining the delay has not been filed, but it appears from the statement made by the learned Additional Government Advocate today that after the aforesaid order was passed, the accused/State Government moved an appeal against the order of which breach is committed. He states that only that part of the judgment and order dated 17^th July 2020, under which costs of Rs.1,000/- per week was made payable to each of the petitioners has been stayed.

¶50

On 19^th April 2021, this Court showed leniency to the accused and permitted her to file an affidavit for explaining the delay. In fact, on 31^st March 2021, time was granted on a

¶51

¶52

specific request made by the learned Additional Government Advocate to report compliance. If there was any genuine intention on the part of the accused to comply with the order of this Court, firstly so much time would not have been taken by the accused to make compliance and secondly, while producing the endorsement dated 15^th April 2021, she would have filed the affidavit explaining the delay and tendering apology. Though the contempt notice was issued way back on 25^th February 2021, even as of today, no remorse is shown by the accused. On 19^th April 2021 time was granted to file an affidavit for explaining delay. Till today, the accused has not filed the affidavit explaining the delay.

¶53

From the order of which breach is alleged, it appears that in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed on 27^th December 2019, the application filed way back on 23^rd September 2015 was not decided by the accused. Therefore, in the year 2020, the complainants were forced to approach the Writ Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.

¶54

In view of belated compliance, though no action cannot be taken against the accused for committing willful breach of the order dated 17^th July 2020, the State Government will have

¶55

¶56

to be saddled with costs. Considering the conduct of the accused and inordinate delay, the costs amount is quantified at Rs.30,000/-. We are aware that the State Government is not a party to the contempt petition. However, the accused was impleaded in the contempt petition in her official capacity as the officer of the State Government and that she was represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the writ petition. We are directing the State Government to pay the costs to the complainants with liberty to the State Government to recover the same from the officers who are responsible for the gross delay. Needless to add that if the State Government does not pay the costs amount, the accused will have to pay the same to the complainants.

¶57

Accordingly, we pass the following order.

¶58

(i) Notice of contempt petition issued on 25^th February 2021 is discharged and the contempt petition is disposed of;

¶59

(ii) We direct the State Government to pay costs quantified at Rs.30,000/- to the complainants on or before 12^th July 2021. It will be open for the State Government to recover the amount of costs from the officers who are responsible for the gross delay in

¶60

¶61

making compliance with the order of this Court dated 17^th July 2020. If the State Government fails to pay the costs within the stipulated time, it will be the obligation of the accused to pay the costs amount to the complainants on or before 20^th July 2021;

¶62

(iii) It will be always open for the complainants to challenge the endorsement dated 15^th April 2021 in accordance with law;

¶63

(iv) Though the contempt petition is disposed of, it will be placed on Board under the caption of Orders for reporting compliance with the payment of costs. The petition shall be listed on 23^rd July 2021.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

K N Venugopal v. Smt Srilakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K N Venugopal v. Smt Srilakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Sri D v Venkataramaiah Vs Sri. P. Nagaprashanth

Sri Gopal Vs M/S Acharaya Patashala