Partly allowed

Sri v. Anjanappa v Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2021CCC/473/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding alleged willful disobedience of an undertaking for phodi work, the High Court held that the specific direction for manner of work was absent, precluding inquiry into defects. The Court imposed costs on the State for delay, disposed of the petition, and allowed the petitioner to challenge the work via ordinary remedy.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings disposed with imposition of Rs. 15,000 costs on the State Government within one month; no further contempt action taken; petitioner directed to seek ordinary remedy for work defects.

Sri v Anjanappa Vs Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^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.473 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI V.ANJANAPPA AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/O MAHESHWARI NAGAR AREHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 00

¶9

... COMPLAINANT

¶10

(BY SHRI M.KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI SHIVAPPA LAMANI, KAS TAHASILDAR

¶13

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002

¶14

... ACCUSED

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶17

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

... RESPONDETN No.2 (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.10.2020)

¶19

(BY SHRI A.C.BALARAJ, HCGP)

¶20

¶21

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE UNDERTAKING AND THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.56313/2018 (KLR-RES) AND TAKE SUITABLE

¶22

¶23

ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH HIM FOR THE SAID DISOBEDIENCE.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

An undertaking of the accused was recorded in the order dated 20^th February 2019 by the learned Single Judge stating that he will complete the phodi work within six months on the basis of the representation made by the complainant.

¶27

By filing a memo, the State Government has taken a stand based on the documents annexed thereto that the phodi work has been concluded and after the phodi durasti , new survey No.47 has been assigned to the property of the complainant.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant invites our attention to the objections filed by the complainant to the aforesaid memo dated 21^st December 2020 filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The contention of the complainant is that while doing the work of phodi , the accused has phoded the complainant’s property by excluding 50% of the property and has included a portion of the land which is already allotted to Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation.

¶29

¶30

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that compliance with the order is only a show and in fact, there is no real compliance.

¶31

We have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that phoding work has been done by the accused. However, the contention of the complainant is that while doing so, 50% of the property held by the complainant has been excluded and some other property has been included.

¶32

There is no specific direction under the order of which breach is alleged about the manner in which the phodi work is to be carried out. Therefore, the dispute raised by the complainant about the defect in phoding work cannot be gone into in this contempt petition and the complainant will have to adopt appropriate remedy for that purpose.

¶33

Though a belated compliance has been made with the order of which breach is alleged, no explanation has been offered for the gross delay. Therefore, the State Government will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-. It will be open for the State Government to recover the amount of costs from the officer who is responsible for committing the

¶34

¶35

breach. We are imposing costs as the order of which breach is alleged is based on the undertaking given by the accused.

¶36

Hence, we pass the following order:

¶37

(i) No further action is required to be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the accused. The petition is disposed of subject to the condition that the State Government shall pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶38

(ii) The complainant can always adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the work of phodi done by the accused;

¶39

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the petition shall be listed on 2^nd March 2021 under the caption of Orders.

¶40

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

AHB

Sri v. Anjanappa v Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Anjanappa v Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas

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

Sri Anjanappa Vs Sri R Anil Kumar

Smt Mahalakshmi Vs Smt. M.S. Archana

K L Javaregowda Vs Smt K L Taneja

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Jagadish

V. Lokesh Vs Shri Manjunath Prasad

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar