Dismissed

V. Lokesh v. Shri Manjunath Prasad

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021CCC/481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a contempt petition filed for violating an order dated 10.10.2019. Finding a one-year delay in compliance but accepting an unconditional apology from the second accused, the court discharged the notice. The respondents were directed to pay Rs.20,000 costs to the petitioner. The corporation was permitted to recover this amount from responsible officers.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; respondents directed to pay Rs.20,000 costs to complainant within one month.

V. Lokesh Vs Shri Manjunath Prasad — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

C.C.C. NO. 481 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

V.LOKESH S/O LATE RAJANNA @ VARADAPPA & SMT.ANNAMMA AGED 36 YEARS, R/A No.159 4^TH CROSS, BHAKTI GARDEN GELIMAT ROAD BENGALURU-560 053.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SHRI SHIVANANDA D.S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHRI MANJUNATH PRASAD THE COMMISSIONER OF BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NARASIMHARAJA ROAD BENGALURU-560 002.

¶15

SMT.RENUKA ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SWM, MALLESHWARAM DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 003.

¶16

... ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SHRI V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

¶20

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED AND INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR VIOLATING THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.49984/2018 DT. 10.10.2019, AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the accused has tendered the affidavit of one Smt.Rekha M.S, Assistant Engineer, Solid Waste Management Division, of the second accused. Along with the affidavit, a copy of the endorsement dated 22^nd January, 2021 has been produced on the basis of the decision taken on 21^st January, 2021.

¶24

As per the order dated 10^th October, 2019 of which breach is complained of, the representation was directed to be decided within three months from the date of the communication of the said order. Along with a letter dated 23^rd October, 2019, the complainant submitted to the

¶25

¶26

accused a certified copy of the order dated 10^th October, 2019. Thus, it was mandatory to comply with the said order on or before 22^nd January 2020. Thus, there is a delay of exactly one year in implementing the order.

¶27

Though the second accused has tendered an unconditional apology, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of one year. The first accused has not filed any affidavit for making any attempt to explain the delay. In view of the belated compliance, though further proceedings cannot be continued, the respondents will have to be saddled with total costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-.

¶28

Hence, we pass the following order:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) By accepting the apology tendered by the second accused, the contempt notice is discharged and the contempt petition is disposed of subject to the condition of the respondents paying the costs quantified at Rs.20,000/to the complainant within one month from today;

¶31

(ii) It will be open for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to pay the amount of costs to the

¶32

¶33

complainant and recover it subsequently from the officer(s) who are responsible for the breach and the delay;

¶34

(iii) It will be open for the complainant to file appropriate proceedings for challenging the decision dated 21^st January, 2021 and the endorsement of the same date;

¶35

(iv) Though the contempt petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding the payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 8^th March, 2021 under the caption

of Orders.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

vgh*

V. Lokesh v. Shri Manjunath Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Lokesh v. Shri Manjunath Prasad

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 Manjula Vs Sri Jagadish

Sri v Anjanappa Vs Sri Shivappa Lamani Kas

Sri Anjanappa Vs Sri R Anil Kumar

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar

Smt.Mala Vs Dr.Madesh

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company Vs Smt. Archana