Dismissed

Smt Sarojamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2021CCC/45/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged non-compliance of a previous order was disposed of. The High Court noted that the impugned order had been complied with, leading to the dropping of the petition, while reserving liberty to assail the compliance officials' action.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dropped with liberty reserved to assail the official memorandum and communication in accordance with law.

Smt Sarojamma Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

C.C.C. NO.45 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.SAROJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, D/O LATE CHIKKA VENKATA SWAMY ALIAS ABBAIAH BHOVI, R/AT SAMPIGE NAGARA VILLAGE HEBBAGODI POST, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU - 571107. ...COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI B.S.NAGARJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶15

M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

SRI MAHADEVAIAH, THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK,

¶17

ANEKAL,

¶18

BENGALURU RURAL

¶19

DISTRICT - 562106 …ACCUSED

¶20

NOTE: THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - STATE IS ONLY A FORMAL PARTY.

¶21

(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶22

¶23

¶24

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.9524/2020 (KLR-RR/SUP), COPY AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶25

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Mr. B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the

¶28

complainant.

¶29

Mr. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶30

This petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the direction contained in the order dated 10.9.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9524/2020 in which the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Thasildar, Anekal Taluk, to consider the petitioner's application dated 18.5.2020 in accordance with law.

¶31

Admittedly, in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the application submitted by the petitioner has been considered by official memorandum dated 10.2.2021 issued by Accused-

¶32

¶33

respondent No.2 and also communication dated 22.7.2021 issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Anekal Taluk. Since the order passed by this Court has already been complied with, we are therefore not inclined to proceed further with the contempt proceedings. However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to assail the official memorandum dated 10.2.2021 and also the communication

¶34

dated 22.7.2021 in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶35

With the above liberty contempt petition is dropped.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Smt Sarojamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sarojamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sohamas Bicester Village Block B Apartment Owner Association Vs Sri N Manjunath Prasad, I.A.S

Sri. P. a. Govardhan, Vs State of Karnataka

K O Varkey Vs Mr Anjum Parwez IAS

Sri.M.N.Venkatanarasimhaiah Vs the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

Sri Mallegowda Dead by His Lrs Vs Smt Varsha Wodayar

Sri Srikanti Vs Sri Umashankar