Dismissed

Karnataka Rakshana Vedike v. Sindhu B Rupesh, IAS

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2021CCC/329/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a contempt petition filed against Deputy Commissioner and Regional Transport Office for alleged non-compliance with a previous division bench order. The Court held that substantial steps have been taken and dismissal of the petition is appropriate.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of, finding no warrant for action under the Contempt of Courts Act due to substantial compliance.

Karnataka Rakshana Vedike Vs Sindhu B Rupesh, IAS — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

C.C.C NO.329 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA RAKSHANA VEDIKE AUTO UNIT (REGD) NO.2, 2^ND FLOOR, PIONEER BUILDING NELLIKAI ROAD, STATE BANK MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT – 575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. ARUN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶9

... COMPLAINANT

¶10

(BY SHRI RAJASHEKARA S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SINDHU B RUPESH, IAS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575001

¶13

2 . R.N. VARNEKAR THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE OPPOSITE TO NEHTRU MAIDAN MAIDAN ROAD, ATTAVAR MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT - 575001 ... ACCUSED

¶14

3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶15

... RESPONDENT No.3 (vide Court order dated 14.12.2020)

¶16

(BY SHRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶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, 1971 PRAYING TO INTIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ABOVE NAMED ACCUSED PERSON AND PUNISH THE ABOVE NAMED ACCUSED PERSON SUITABLY AND APPROPRIATELY FOR THE CONTEMPT OF COURT COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED BY NOT OBEYING THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2019 PASSED BY DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.34437/2018 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

complainant.

¶24

Perused the affidavit of the accused. In the affidavit of the accused, it is stated that the notices have been issued to 591 auto permit holders seeking clarification and better particulars. An endorsement is issued on 26^th December 2020.

¶25

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that though the notices have been issued to 591 auto permit holders, action has not been taken even against half of them.

¶26

A huge exercise was undertaken by issuing notices to 591 auto permit holders. Notwithstanding the endorsement dated 26^th December 2020, it is obvious that the State Government will have to take notices issued to all 591 auto

¶27

¶28

permit holders to its logical conclusion. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant is right to an extent that complete compliance cannot be said to have been made by virtue of what is stated in the endorsement dated 26^th December 2020.

¶29

Considering the enormity of the exercise undertaken by the State Government, it can be said that substantial steps have been taken for implementing all the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, at this stage, an action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not warranted. If the complainant finds that all the notices issued to 591 auto permit holders are not taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable time, the complainant can always file a fresh petition complaining about the breach.

¶30

Subject to what is observed above, the contempt petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Karnataka Rakshana Vedike v. Sindhu B Rupesh, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Rakshana Vedike v. Sindhu B Rupesh, IAS

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

Nagaraju Vs Sri. G.S. Partha

Smt Bollera Muthamma Chengappa Vs Sri Kiran K S

Sriman Maharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Vs Sandeepraju

Sri Thagadaiah Vs Smt.Manjula

Sri T S Ramaprasad Vs Smt Manjula

Anil Antony Vs the State of Karnataka