In contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance of an order directing the BDA to decide a representation within three months, the court found a delay from September 2021 to December 2021. It awarded Rs. 15,000 as costs and dropped the proceedings.
Award of Rs. 15,000 as cost to complainant from respondent and dropping of contempt proceedings.
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 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
C.C.C. NO.428 OF 2021
IN
W.P.NO.27533 OF 2020 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI S.G.RAGHAVENDRA, S/O S.N.GANESH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT: NO.253/F, TYPE 2, R.W.F, WEST COLONY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 054. ...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI SUNDARESH H.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAJESH GOWDA, THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020 …ACCUSED
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHANAN M, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.27533/2019 DATED 11.11.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
2
THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. Sundaresh H.C., learned counsel for the
complainant.
Mr. Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
This petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the direction contained in the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27533/2019 in which the writ petition preferred by the complainant was disposed of with a following direction:
"7. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose off this petition directing the respondent/BDA to address the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of Annexures-F.G and H supra as well as other material on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3
7.8.2021. However, as per the direction issued by the learned single Judge, the representation ought to have been decided on or before 9.3.2021 but it has been decided on 7.8.2021 and there is no explanation for the delay. Hence, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of cost to the complainant and in turn he shall be at liberty to recover the amount from the Officer who is responsible for causing the delay in deciding the representation submitted by the complainant.
With the aforesaid direction, the contempt proceeding
is dropped.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
HR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused is liable for contempt for delaying decision on a representation beyond the prescribed date.
Whether costs should be awarded for the delay in complying with the earlier court order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri S.G.Raghavendra
Sri Rajesh Gowda
Alok Aradhe
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
