Dismissed

M/S Chaithanya Samarpan Owners Welfare Association v. Mr G Kumar Naik

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024CCC/435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that where the direction was merely to consider representations, and the authority acted upon them by cancelling the allotment and inviting applications under applicable rules, no willful contempt was committed. The grievance regarding the merits of allotment could not be addressed in contempt jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; contempt proceedings held not to survive.

M/S Chaithanya Samarpan Owners Welfare Association Vs Mr… — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39874-DB CCC No. 435 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND

¶8

CCC NO. 435 OF 2023 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. CHAITHANYA SAMARPAN OWNERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION (CSOWA) CHAITHANYA SAMARPAN WHITEFIELD-HOSKOTE MAIN ROAD KANNAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 067 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. RAVEENDRAN GANDHI, 57 YEARS S/O GANDHI RAMASWAMY

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHAKUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MR. G KUMAR NAIK COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.1, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 002

¶16

…ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR THEIR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2022

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:39874-DB CCC No. 435 of 2023

¶21

PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.5053/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DEAL WITH THEM APPROPRIATELY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶27

Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, passed the order dated 08.11.2022 whereby, the respondent-the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) was directed to address the grievance of the petitioner-Association and consider their representations dated 05.09.2019 and 07.12.2020 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within the stipulated time.

¶28

The aforesaid direction to consider the representations and pass the order was issued in the context of the prayer of the petitioner before learned Single Judge seeking direction to the respondent-BDA to handover the civic amenity Site No.1 situated in Chaithanya Samarpan Layout in Sy.Nos.154 and 155 of Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39874-DB CCC No. 435 of 2023

¶30

Today when the contempt proceedings came up for consideration, learned advocate Mr. Murugesh V. Charati for the respondent-BDA has filed the memo dated 28.08.2024 along with which, the copy of the endorsement dated 27.08.2024 issued by the Estate Officer, BDA, Bengaluru, is produced.

¶31

3.1 Therein, two main aspects are stated. Firstly, that the allotment of CA Site No.1 of Chaithanya Samarpana Layout in favour of M/s. Chaithanya Samarpana Welfare Association has been cancelled on 16.07.2024. It is secondly stated that the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, would operate whereunder, applications shall be invited and if application is submitted by the complainant, the same would be considered for allotment as per eligibility.

¶32

While learned advocate for the respondent would submit that the aforesaid endorsement amounts to compliance of the directions, learned advocate Smt. S.K. Prathima for the complainant stated that it does not amount to compliance inasmuch as the authority has asked for giving second application which is uncalled for. It was submitted that one application was already

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39874-DB CCC No. 435 of 2023

¶34

made by the complainant which is liable to be considered and the complainant deserves to be allotted site.

¶35

As noted above, the direction of learned Single Judge was to consider the representations of the complainant and pass appropriate order. The representations are considered. The authority has proceeded to cancel the earlier allotment. Thereafter, if in compliance of the aforementioned Rules, the respondent is to invite applications and consider the case of the complainant for allotment of site, if he has applied, as per eligibility, it could not be said that thereby any willful contempt is committed by the respondent.

¶36

The contention raised by learned advocate for the complainant that application could not have been invited for and allotment should have been straight away made in favour of the complainant, cannot be the subject matter of domain of contempt jurisdiction when the direction “to consider the representations is acted upon and decided in the aforesaid manner”.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:39874-DB CCC No. 435 of 2023

¶39

The contempt proceedings do not survive as no contempt could be said to have been committed in view of the aforementioned endorsement.

¶40

It is observed that any further grievance if survives for the complainant, it will be open for him to institute independent proceedings seeking relief in respect of which recourse and in respect of such subject matter, this Court does not express any opinion on merits.

¶41

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶43

BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

M/S Chaithanya Samarpan Owners Welfare Association v. Mr G Kumar Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chaithanya Samarpan Owners Welfare Association v. Mr G Kumar Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H L Laxmipathy Vs Dr Shalini Rajanesh

Mr M S Ramanujan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B Sumithra Vs N Jayaram

Sri. Ravishankar S. Vs Smt. Arathi Venkatesh Sunadholi

Sri. Gurunath Vadde Vs the State of Karnataka

G. K. Rathna Vs the State of Karnataka