Sri Irshad Khaliq Vs Sri Jayaram — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Irshad Khaliq Vs Sri Jayaram — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No punishment imposed; contempt petition disposed of on compliance being shown, with liberty to the complainant to challenge the endorsement dated 31.07.2024 in appropriate independent proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused, the Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, complied with the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.04.2024 in Writ Petition No. 28818 of 2023 directing him to consider the complainant's claim for allotment of the land adjoining his site admeasuring 526 sq.ft., so that the contempt proceedings survive or not.

Court's answer

Since the respondent took a decision on the petitioner's claim (endorsement dated 31.07.2024 rejecting it as not entitled to allotment), it marks compliance with the learned Single Judge's direction to consider the claim; consequently the contempt petition does not survive and is disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

If any grievance persists with the petitioner about the merits of the order/endorsement dated 31.07.2024, he may institute appropriate independent proceedings, and this Court expresses nothing on those merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No. 673 of 2024) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, filed by Irshad Khaliq against Jayaram, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, alleging non-compliance with the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.04.2024 in Writ Petition No. 28818 of 2023, which had directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of land adjoining his site admeasuring 526 sq.ft. and pass appropriate orders within stipulated time. Pursuant to the contempt petition, a compliance memo dated 06.08.2024 was filed enclosing a vernacular endorsement dated 31.07.2024 by which the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that he is not entitled to allotment. Holding that the taking of this decision marked compliance with the Single Judge's direction to consider the claim, the Division Bench (Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria, speaking for the Bench, with Justice M.I. Arun) disposed of the contempt petition as it did not survive, leaving the petitioner at liberty to institute independent proceedings against the endorsement dated 31.07.2024 and expressly refraining from expressing anything on its merits.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4227-DB CCC No. 673 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

PRESENT

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

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 673 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. IRSHAD KHALIQ S/O MOHAMMED KHALIQ SHARIF AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE

KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 091.

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. JAYARAM THE COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ORDER PASSED BY

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4227-DB CCC No. 673 of 2024

THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.28818 OF 2023 DATED 16.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The only direction of learned Single Judge in the order dated 16.04.2024 while disposing of the writ petition was to direct respondent No.1-the Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru to consider the claim of the petitioner about entitlement of the allotment of the land adjoining his site admeasuring 526 sq.ft., and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within stipulated time.

Pursuant to filing of the contempt petition, compliance memo dated 06.08.2024 came to be filed by learned advocate for the respondent along with which endorsement dated 31.07.2024 is produced in vernacular.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4227-DB CCC No. 673 of 2024

It was explained to the Court by translating that as per the said endorsement, the petitioner's claim is rejected holding that the petitioner is not entitled to allotment.

Since the decision is taken as aforesaid, it marks the compliance of the directions of learned Single Judge to consider the claim of the petitioner.

The contempt petition does not survive, it is accordingly disposed of.

If any grievance persists with the petitioner about the merits of the order/endorsement dated 31.07.2024, it will be open for the petitioner to institute appropriate independent proceedings in respect of which, this Court does not express anything on merits.

Sd/-

(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49