Disposed

Sri Mahadevaiah v. Sri Ramesh

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2021CCC/188/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the Court addressed the delay in complying with a 2019 order directing the Karnataka Housing Board to consider specific representations. The Court found the delay over a year but took no further punitive action after accepting an apology, imposing a cost of Rs.50,000 and discharging the notice.

What did the court decide?

Notice of contempt discharged; Karnataka Housing Board to pay costs of Rs.50,000 within one month; pending interlocutory application dismissed.

Sri Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Ramesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CCC NO.188/2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HINNAKKI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK

¶10

BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106 …COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI RAMESH THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD KAVERI BHAVAN

¶14

BANGALORE-560 009

¶15

SMT. H. JAYA THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD KAVERI BHAVAN

¶16

BANGALORE-560 009 …ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI MANU K, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DATED 18.11.2019 IN W.P.NO.48606/2019 AND TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant

¶23

and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

¶24

The breach alleged is of the judgment and order dated 18^th November 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which, a direction was issued to the accused to consider the representations of the petitioner -complainant filed way back on 8^th May 2018. A decision was directed to be taken not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. A copy of the said order was forwarded to the first accused along with a letter dated 6^th January 2020. On the same day,

¶25

¶26

another copy was forwarded to the second accused. The present contempt petition was filed on 20^th February 2021. Notice of contempt was issued on 26^th February 2021.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the accused filed separate affidavits of the accused enclosing therewith a copy of the order dated 6^th March 2021 by which, the representations of the complainant have been rejected. He submitted that both the accused have tendered an apology for the delay.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the said order dated 6^th March 2021 is erroneous.

¶29

We have considered the submissions. In the year 2019, the petitioner -complainant filed a writ petition complaining about the failure of the Karnataka Housing Board to deal with the representations made on 8^th May 2018. On 18^th November 2019, when the order at Annexure-A was passed, the representations made on 8^th May 2018 were not decided. A copy of the order dated 18^th November 2019 was served upon both the accused on 6^th January 2020. Moreover, the accused were represented before the learned Single Judge when the order dated 18^th November 2019 was made. The said order was required to be complied with

¶30

¶31

within eight weeks from 6^th January 2020. Only after the contempt notice was served upon the accused, it is claimed that the order dated 18^th November 2019 has been complied with by passing an order dated 6^th March 2021. Perusal of both the affidavits will show that not even an attempt has been made to explain the delay. The delay is of more than one year.

¶32

It is true that in view of the belated compliance, further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 need not be initiated. However, the accused have not explained the delay of more than one year. Therefore, the apology tendered in the affidavits cannot be accepted for its face value. The Karnataka Housing Board will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-.

¶33

Hence, we pass the following order:

¶34

(i) By accepting the apology tendered by both the accused,

¶35

the notice of contempt is discharged and the contempt petition is disposed of subject to condition that the Karnataka Housing Board shall pay costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶36

¶37

(ii) It will be open for the complainant to challenge the order dated 6^th March 2021 in accordance with law;

¶38

(iii) Though the contempt petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 28^th May 2021 under the caption of "Orders";

¶39

(iv) The pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Sri Mahadevaiah v. Sri Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahadevaiah v. Sri Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hanumanthappa Kakargal Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Manjunatha Stone Crusher Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Veera Hanuman Stone Crusher Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. M. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Karunakar Alva

B Subbaya Rai Vs Union of India

Sri S K Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka