Sri. Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy Vs Sri.K.H.Khan — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy Vs Sri.K.H.Khan — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.281 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SRI PABBA REDDY KODANDARAMI REDDY S/O. RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TOWERS SY NO.75/6, 2^ND FLOOR, OUTER RING ROAD NEAR NEW HORIZON GURUKUL SCHOOL BELLANDU, BENGALURU - 560 013.

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI K. H. KHAN MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. UPAKAR RESIDENCES PVT. LTD. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.28 UPKAR TOWERS, 9^TH CROSS 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011.

SRI. DR. AJAY NAGABHUSHAN M. N., IAS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.434, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

CHIDANANDA N. S. ADDL. METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER BENGALURU METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052.

GOPALKRISHNA THE MEMBER SECRETARY SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 052.

S. T. SOMASHEKAR THE MEMBER SECRETARY SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052.

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI KARTHIK N., ADVOCATE FOR; SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR A-1; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR A-4; SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., A.G.A., FOR A-2 AND A-5)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, RULE 11 AND 12 OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES 1981 BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR COMMITTING WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.11.2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.19754/2022 DESCRIBED AT ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the respondent No.4/complainant against the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3/accused in respect of the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.19754/2022, vide Annexure-A.

Sri. Abhishek, learned counsel representing Sri. Sadanand.G.Shastri, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri. Karthik.N representing Smt. Leela.P.Devadiga, learned counsel for accused No.1, Sri. Yogesh.D.Naik, learned counsel appearing for accused No.4 and Smt. Namitha Mahesh.B.G, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos.2 and 5, are present before the Court physically.

Learned counsel for the complainant is seeking intervention for implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Paragraph No.17 of the aforesaid order reads as under:

" It is made clear even as clarified by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Classic

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

Orchards supra, right to use the roads in the layout formed by the respondent No.4 does not give right to cause any inconvenience or hindrance to the occupants of the layout. Thus, safety as well as maintenance of aesthetics of the layout should be kept in mind by the users. The petitioner shall not cause hindrance to the occupants of the layouts, merely because it can use the road in the layout".

The above observation made by the learned Single Judge is required to be complied by the accused.

Learned counsel for accused No.1, learned counsel for accused No.4 and learned Addl. Government Advocate for accused Nos.2 and 5 prays to refer and consider paragraph No.16 of the aforesaid order, reads as under :

"In view of the aforesaid position of law and in view of the factual position narrated hereinabove and also in view of submission made by learned counsel for respondent-Authority that action would be taken against respondent No.4 pursuant to the notice already issued for removal of obstruction nothing remains for consideration except to direct the respondent-Authority to ensure compliance of condition-11 of the sanctioned plan by respondent No.4 within an outer limit of three weeks from the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

date of receipt of certified copy of this order by removing the obstructions and not causing any obstruction to the users of the neighboring properties."

In view of the above submissions, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 2(b) and Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under :

"Section 2.(b) "Civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Section 11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. - A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.

Section 12. Punishment for contempt of court. - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in subsection (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer."

For consideration of paragraph Nos.12 to 17 of the

aforesaid order, Sri. Yogesh.D.Naik, learned counsel appearing for accused No.4 submits that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, an appeal is preferred by the

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3137-DB CCC No. 281 of 2023

complainant herein in WA.No.61/2023 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 24.11.2023.

Keeping in view the observations made in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the aforesaid order, it is deemed appropriate that this contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration.

Consequently, the contempt proceeding is hereby

dropped.

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7