Allowed

N Muniramappa v. Sri Ramesh

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022CCC/43/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings for failure to comply with a direction to consider a representation within three months, the Karnataka High Court dropped proceedings ex debito justitiae but imposed a personal cost of Rs.20,000 because the State officer failed to raise administrative exigencies earlier.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped subject to payment of Rs.20,000 personal cost by the accused officer within three weeks.

N Muniramappa Vs Sri Ramesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

C.C.C. No.43/2020 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

N. MUNIRAMAPPA S/O. LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ANKKATHATAHALLI VILLAGE

¶10

T. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, NOW KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 116.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI RAMESH, THE THASILDHAR, BANGARPET TALUK, NOW K.G.F. TALUK, ROBERTSON PET, K.G.F. KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 122.

¶15

SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, T. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BETHMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK,

¶16

¶17

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 116. ... ACCUSED

¶18

(BY SRI ARUN K.S., HCGP FOR A-1 AND A-2)

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDER/DIRECTION DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.NO.16751/2019 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J ., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The complainant has filed the present contempt petition to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. No.16751/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, directed respondent No.2 – Tahsildar to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-H dated 03.04.2019 expeditiously within an outer limit of three months from the date of the order.

¶23

¶24

Since the representation has not been

¶25

considered by the accused within the time stipulated, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 06.01.2020.

¶26

This Court issued notice to the accused

¶27

persons on 13.03.2020. When the matter was posted on 01.12.2022, though accused Nos.1 and 2 were served, they were unrepresented. When this Court was inclined to issue a non-bailable warrant to the accused persons, the learned Government Advocate undertook to file a power on behalf of the accused and submitted that, if some time is granted, the order passed by the learned Single Judge would be complied with while issuing the endorsement. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate filed the compliance affidavit of Smt. K.N. Sujatha, Tahsildar, Bangarpet Taluk now K.G.F. Taluk and stated at paragraph Nos.3 to 5 as under:

¶28

¶29

“3. I most respectfully submit that, the Representation submitted by the Complainant has been considered and a detailed Endorsement has been issued on 30.11.2020 and the same has been intimated to the Complainant. Considering the issuance of the Endorsement, the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court has been complied with. The copy of the said Endorsement is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-R1 .

¶30

I most respectfully submit that, I have great respect and regard towards the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and I have always obeyed the order passed by this Hon’ble Court with high esteem and I have not wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Hon’ble Court at any point of time.

¶31

I most respectfully submit that, there is a delay in complying the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and the said delay is because of administrative exigencies and no intentional and I hereby tender my unconditional apology and express my deepest regret and remorse for the delay in complying the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this

¶32

- 5 -

¶33

Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay and accept the unconditonal apology and affidavit on record and be pleased to drop the Contempt Proceedings.”

¶34

Thereby, learned Government Advocate

¶35

submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been complied.

¶36

By careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as long back as on 27.08.2019 directing respondent No.2-present accused No.1 to consider the representation dated 03.04.2019 of the petitioner within an outer limit of three months from the date of the order. The order should have been complied on or before 27.11.2019.

¶37

Since the accused has not complied the order within the time stipulated, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 06.01.2020 by engaging a lawyer before this Court by spending litigation expenses. When this Court was inclined to issue non-

¶38

- 6 -

¶39

bailable warrant, at that stage, learned Government Advocate sought time to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, today (08/12/2022), learned Government Advocate filed the compliance affidavit along with the endorsement dated 30.11.2020 issued by the accused rejecting the representation of the petitioner i.e., after lapse of more than one year from the date of the order. Thereby, the complainant was driven unnecessarily before this Court by filing the present contempt petition is nothing but creating one more litigation wasting the public time, harassing the complainant, who is a farmer and thereby, the officer of the State has indirectly created unnecessary litigation.

¶40

Now the Endorsement was issued after the lapse of one year rejecting the application of the complainant and thereby, necessarily, the complainant has to drag out further litigation. Thereby, the authorities have not discharged the duty within the time stipulated nor filed any application before the learned Single Judge, if

¶41

- 7 -

¶42

they have any administrative exigencies as stated in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit and no such application has been filed before the learned Single Judge. Thereby, it is the bounded duty of the accused-Tahsildar to comply with the order within the time stipulated however, the same has not been done. Thereby, the accused is liable to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant in the present contempt petition from her pocket for lethargic attitude.

¶43

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The civil contempt proceedings are hereby dropped subject to the payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- payable by the accused to the complainant from her pocket and not from the Government fund and produce the acknowledgment for having paid the cost before this Court within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.

¶46

¶47

ii. It is needless to observe that it is always open for the complainant to challenge the endorsement dated 30.11.2020 issued by the accused, if so desires, in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

MBM

N Muniramappa v. Sri Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Muniramappa v. Sri Ramesh

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

Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Somashekar M Vs Dr. G C Prakash

K M Sathynarayana Vs N.J. Nagaraj

Sri. N.T. Karennavar Vs Sri G. Parameshwara

Sri Kariyappa @ Ramaiah Vs Sri E v Ramana Reddy

Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha Vs Sri. Vishwanath Madaiah M