Disposed¶38

The Bengaluru Flower Merchants v. Sri. Thushar Girinath

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2025CCC/827/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (K. Somashekar & Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.), CCC No. 827/2022, order dated 29.01.2025 — civil contempt under Ss. 11 & 12, Contempt of Courts Act 1971 by Bengaluru Flower Merchants Association against BBMP Commissioner for alleged wilful disobedience of 14.09.2021 order in W.P.No.53474/2017 (GM-RES) c/w connected matters directing clearance of encroachers at K.R. Market; compliance affidavit with Documents 1–10 filed 28.03.2024; O.S.No.6032/2023 pending; contempt power discretionary per S.Tirupati Rao v. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 (para 52); petition dropped for the present with liberty to complainant.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped 'for the present' (neither initiated nor punished); liberty granted to the complainant to proceed in accordance with law. ¶38

The Bengaluru Flower Merchants Vs Sri. Thushar Girinath — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition dropped 'for the present' (neither initiated nor punished); liberty granted to the complainant to proceed in accordance with law.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Commissioner, BBMP) wilfully disobeyed the co-ordinate Bench's order dated 14.09.2021 in W.P.No.53474/2017 (GM-RES) c/w W.A.No.2542/2014 (LBBMP), WP.No.29234/2015 and connected matters, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings and imprisonment for three months. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for respondent/accused (compliance affidavit with Documents Nos. 1 to 10 filed on 28.03.2024 and the pending O.S.No.6032/2023), the contempt petition does not survive for consideration, for the present, and is hereby dropped.

¶38

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the complainant in accordance with law.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition No. 827 of 2022 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, filed by the Bengaluru Flower Merchants Association (represented by its President G.M. Diwakar) against the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Sri Thushar Girinath, IAS), alleging wilful disobedience of the co-ordinate Bench's order dated 14.09.2021 in W.P.No.53474/2017 (GM-RES) c/w W.A.No.2542/2014 (LBBMP), WP.No.29234/2015 and connected matters, whereby BBMP was directed to take action against encroachers on pavements, roads, public passages and fire exits and against unauthorized occupants, concluding the exercise within three months. The respondent filed a compliance affidavit with Documents Nos. 1 to 10 on 28.03.2024 (sketch of K.R. Market complex, photographs of roads/public passages/fire exits/stairs/fire extinguishers/shed for fire-engine parking, and requisition dated 19.05.2023 to the Director, Fire Brigade Department); it was also submitted that O.S.No.6032/2023 filed by M.S.Rajendra Kumar against BBMP is pending. Referring to S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 (paragraph 52 — contempt jurisdiction is discretionary; even where disobedience is not disputed, impossibility of compliance or grave public-policy concerns may justify refusing punishment), the Division Bench (K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.) held that the contempt petition does not survive for consideration 'for the present' and dropped it, granting the complainant liberty in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3989-DB CCC No. 827 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 827 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE BENGALURU FLOWER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION UPPER BASEMENT FLOOR SRI KRISHNA RAJENDRA MARKET NEW COMPLEX BENGALURU 560002 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT G.M. DIWAKAR AGED 54 YEARS.

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

Digitally signed (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD AKRAM UPPIN – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. by SUMATHY KANNAN KOTHWAL – ADVOCATE FOR R KOTHWAL & CO.,) Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. THUSHAR GIRINATH I.A.S AGED 55 YEARS COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE PALIKE OFFICES NARASIMHA RAJA SQUARE BENGALURU 560002.

¶14

…ACCUSED

¶15

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S - ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3989-DB CCC No. 827 of 2022

¶17

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND THEY BE PUNISHED FOR IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HOBBLE COURT IN WP NO.53474/2021 (GM-RES) DATED 14.09.2021.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

This contempt petition is initiated by the complainant against the respondent in view of non-compliance of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.53474/2017 (GM-RES) c/w W.A.No.2542/2014 (LBBMP), WP.No.29234/2015 and connected matters dated 14.09.2021 as per Annexure-A.

¶23

In the order rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, respondent –BBMP was directed to take appropriate action in respect of the encroachers, in respect of the shops which are

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3989-DB CCC No. 827 of 2022

¶25

on pavements or on the road, public passages as well as fire exits and in respect of the unauthorized occupants. The BBMP shall conclude the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from the date of said order after flowing the due process of law.

¶26

Learned counsel Sri Mohammed Akram Uppin appears for learned counsel Sri Rahamathulla Kothwal who is on record for complainant. Learned counsel Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K.S for respondent/accused is present.

¶27

Learned counsel for complainant submits that order passed by the co-ordinate Bench has not been complied absolutely.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that compliance affidavit along with documents Nos.1 to 10 has been filed on 28.03.2024. Document No.1 is a copy of the order of this Court. Document No.2 is a copy of bird’s eye view sketch of the K.R.Market complex. Document No.3 is a copy of representation dated 09.12.2010 given by the complainant’s Association and its typed copy. Document No.4 is a copy of the

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3989-DB CCC No. 827 of 2022

¶30

representation dated 27.09.2022 given by the complainant’s Association. Document No.5 is Photographs showing the roads/public passages, fire exits surrounding the outer building. Document No.6 is photographs in respect of the ingress and egress and the 50 ft wide stairs in respect of the main building. Document No.7 is photos of 10 ft wide stairs. Document No.8 is photos showing installed fire extinguishers. Document No.9 is photos showing the construction of shed for parking of fire engine. Document No.10 is a requisition dated 19.05.2023 to station a fire engine to the Director, Fire Brigade Department Halasuru, Bengalurun and its typed copy.

¶31

However, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764

¶32

in paragraph 52 observed as under:

¶33

‘52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3989-DB CCC No. 827 of 2022

¶35

exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice.’

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent/accused submits that O.S.No.6032/2023 filed by M.S.Rajendra Kumar against BBMP

¶37

is pending for consideration. This submission is placed on record.

¶38

Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for respondent/accused, this contempt petition does not survive for consideration, for the present and is hereby dropped.

¶39

In the meanwhile, learned counsel for complainant

¶40

seeks liberty. Liberty is granted to the complainant in accordance with law.

¶41

SD/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶44

The Bengaluru Flower Merchants v. Sri. Thushar Girinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bengaluru Flower Merchants v. Sri. Thushar Girinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lingaraju K N Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Vinayaka Educational Trust, Vs Mr. Tushar Girinath

Sri.T.K.Subramanya Vs Mohan Kumar

M Krishna Murthy Vs Tushar Girinath

Sri a Krishnappa Vs Sri Muniswamappa

Sri. Srinivasa Murthy H M Vs N. Jayaram