Disposed

Mallikarjunaiah B K v. M. Natesh

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CCC/392/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dealt with a contempt petition filed for delay in complying with an order directing site allotment. Finding gross delay without explanation, the Court disposed of the petition without initiating further contempt action but imposed ₹20,000 costs on the Authority.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed; Authority saddled with costs of ₹20,000 payable within one month.

Mallikarjunaiah B K Vs M. Natesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

CCC NO.392 OF 2021(CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MALLIKARJUNAIAH B.K., S/O KIDAGANAPPA D.R. AGED 66 YEARS, No.55, NISARGA I STAGE, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY.H. FOR SRI. R.B.SANGAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M. NATESH, COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.

¶15

SMT. GIRIJA, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.

¶16

… ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR A-1 AND A-2) --THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF

¶18

¶19

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO PUNISH ALL THE ACCUSED FOR DEFAULT/VIOLATION OF THE COURT ORDER DATED 19.12.2019, PASSED IN W.P.No.22649/2018 (CONNECTED WITH W.P.No.31341/2018).

¶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 complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

accused.

¶24

The breach alleged is of the direction contained in Paragraph 17 of the order dated 19^th December, 2019. Paragraph 17 reads thus;

¶25

"This Court by interim order dated 13.03.2019 had directed the respondent - MUDA to reserve one site to each of the petitioners of the dimension applied for in the respective layouts. In light of the said interim order and in light of setting aside of the endorsements at Annexure-A in both the writ petitions, the applications of the petitioners would be considered in accordance with the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities

¶26

¶27

(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 and if the petitioners are otherwise eligible as per the said Rules, steps would be taken for making allotment with respect to the sites that have been reserved and set apart."

¶28

On 13^th October, 2020, a legal notice was

¶29

issued by the advocate for the complainant to the accused calling upon the accused to comply with the order dated 19^th December, 2019. There was no response to the legal notice. Therefore, the present petition was filed on 2^nd June, 2021 in which notice was issued on 9^th June, 2021. Now an affidavit has been filed by the accused Dr.D.B.Natesh, stating that the order of allotment has been issued to the complainant as late as on 12^th July, 2021.

¶30

It is true that there is no outer limit fixed for making compliance with the direction contained in Paragraph 17 quoted above. But the said order ought to have been complied with within a reasonable time. Considering the nature of direction, a reasonable time can

¶31

be taken as three months. The accused were served with the legal notice dated 13^th October, 2020. Even then, a

¶32

¶33

communication was not issued to the complainant about the steps taken to implement the said order.

¶34

In paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the accused, it

¶35

is stated that the Law Officer submitted opinion on 12^th March, 2020 and the order of this Court was brought to notice of his predecessor on 20^th April, 2020. Nearly two months thereafter, on 17^th June, 2020 the complainant was called upon to produce the details of his retirement from the service. The details were produced by the complainant on 19^th June, 2020. Thereafter, the opinion of the law officer was forwarded to the Secretary of the Authority on 3^rd July, 2020. On 6^th July, 2020 the accused directed that the same should be placed before the Board for approval. It is stated that from September, 2020 till November, 2020 there was no Board meeting held. However, there is no explanation as to why the subject was not placed before the Board meetings held in July, 2020 and August, 2020. Though the Board meeting was conducted on 6^th November, 2020, the subject was not placed on that day.

¶36

Thus, there is a gross delay in complying with

¶37

the order of this Court for which there is no explanation.

¶38

¶39

In the affidavit, the accused has stated that

¶40

now he has issued a Circular dated 15^th June, 2021 to all the officers of Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short "the Authority") to ensure that prompt action will be taken on the basis of the orders of this Court.

¶41

In view of the belated compliance, no further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deserves to be initiated. However, the Authority will have to be saddled with costs of Rs.20,000/-.

¶42

9. Accordingly, we pass the following;

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The contempt petition is disposed of subject to the condition of the Authority paying the costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month from today;

¶45

(ii) It is open for the Authority to recover the costs from the officers who are responsible for the delay.

¶46

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting the compliance regarding the payment

¶47

¶48

of costs, the same shall be listed on 15^th September, 2021.

¶49

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Mallikarjunaiah B K v. M. Natesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjunaiah B K v. M. Natesh

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

Smt Mangamma Vs Shri Narasimha Murthy

Sri. Lokesha Vs Sri. K. R. Mohan Raju

The Managing Director Vs Nanjaiah

Smt. C. R. Umarani Vs Smt. S. Shaheena

Smt Lakshmamma W/O Late P Krishnappa Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Padmayya N Naik Vs Muktar Ahammed