Suo motu criminal contempt proceeding against the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, for failure to implement a writ order was dropped after the accused filed a compliance affidavit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:42412-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU-560001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE – SPP-II FOR SRI. ANOOPKUMAR – HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI VIJAY KUMAR R TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K - ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.CCC FILED UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE (SUO-MOTU) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN - SRI VIJAY KUMAR R, TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND PUNISH HIM.
THIS CRL.CCC, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This suo moto contempt proceeding is filed by the
High Court of Karnataka under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India seeking to initiate criminal contempt against the accused namely Sri Vijay Kumar R. being the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore in view of the directions issued by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18670/2022 dated 16.01.2024.
On enquiry as to when he has taken charge, he submits that it was on 17.06.2023. Taking charge on 17.06.2023, cannot be said to be recent by any stretch of imagination. The order dated 01.08.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner being required to be implemented and order of this Court is dated 21.07.2023, the Tahsildar had
nearly seven months’ time to implement the order of this Court dated 21.07.2023, he having taken charge prior to the order of this Court is dated 21.07.2023, the Tahsildar had nearly seven months’ time to implement the order of this Court dated 21.07.2023, he having taken charge prior to the order of this Court, despite which the same has not been done. The excuse now given that he has recently taken charge would only amount to obstruction of the implementation of the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 21.07.2023.
compliance affidavit has been filed, but the order passed
by the learned single Judge has not been complied. This submission is placed on record.
this contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.
Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
DKB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal contempt proceedings against the Tahsildar for non-implementation of a writ order should be initiated or dropped given the filed compliance affidavit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
High Court of Karnataka rep. by the Registrar General, Bengaluru
Sri Vijay Kumar R, Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk
K.SOMASHEKAR
RAJESH RAI K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
