Dismissed¶39

Mr G Rabinathan v. Sri. Tushar Girinath

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026CCC/1025/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court civil contempt CCC 1025/2025; contempt proceedings declined and complaint closed; wilful disobedience not established; compliance shown through BBMP Act 2020 Section 248(1) and (2) notices, confirmation notice dated 30.04.2024 under Section 248(3), demolition order dated 02.07.2024 under Section 356; property sealed; relates to orders dated 22.04.2024, 13.06.2024 and 22.06.2024 in W.P. No. 7770/2024 restraining construction including internal works; architect's report unfiled; Single Judge not precluded from adverse view; Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and K.S. Hemalekha, J; decided 02.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; contempt proceedings were not initiated and the complaint was closed. ¶39

Mr G Rabinathan Vs Sri. Tushar Girinath — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; contempt proceedings were not initiated and the complaint was closed.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether accused Nos. 1 to 4 disobeyed the orders dated 22.04.2024, 13.06.2024 and 22.06.2024 passed in W.P. No. 7770/2024 such that appropriate contempt proceedings should be initiated against them. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

In view of the compliance affidavit (notices under Section 248(1) and (2), confirmation notice dated 30.04.2024 under Section 248(3), demolition order dated 02.07.2024 under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020, and photographs showing the property sealed), wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Court is not established.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

It is not apposite to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; the complaint is accordingly closed.

¶39

Key takeaways

As regards the order dated 22.04.2024, the architect's report directed to be filed has not been filed; the learned Single Judge is not precluded from taking any adverse view, if warranted.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt petition (CCC No. 1025 of 2025) filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 of the Constitution by G. Rabinathan against the BBMP Chief Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Executive Director (Town Planning, East) and a private individual, alleging wilful disobedience of the orders dated 22.04.2024, 13.06.2024 and 22.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7770/2024, including the interim order directing the Assistant Director of Town Planning to stop all construction activity (including internal works) at the property. Relying on the compliance affidavit of accused Nos. 1 to 3 showing issuance of notices under Section 248(1) and (2), a confirmation notice dated 30.04.2024 under Section 248(3) and a demolition order dated 02.07.2024 under Section 356 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, together with photographs indicating the property was sealed, the Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J) held wilful disobedience of the Court's order was not established, found it not apposite to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and closed the complaint, observing that the architect's report directed on 22.04.2024 remained unfiled and that the learned Single Judge was not precluded from taking any adverse view, if warranted.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32855-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1025 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. G. RABINATHAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O. MR. M.S. GNANAPRAGASAM, RESIDING AT NO.47/1, MACRO MAYFAIR APARTMENT, 2^ND CROSS, SINDHI COLONY, WHEELERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 005. …COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. TUSHAR GIRINATH THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

SMT. B.B. SAROJA THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, 21^ST FLOOR, UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 005.

¶16

SRI. IMRAN THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING, (EAST) BBMP, 21^ST FLOOR, UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 005.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:32855-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. SHARAN SAMTANI, RESIDING AT NO.53, WHEELERS ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, SINDHI COLONY, PULIKESHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 005.

¶21

…ACCUSED

¶22

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE FOR A-1; SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE FOR A-4; ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDERS DATED 22.04.2024, 13.06.2024 AND 22.06.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.7770/2024 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging

¶29

willful disobedience of the orders dated 22.04.2024, 13.06.2024 and 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7770/2024.

¶30

By an interim order dated 22.06.2024, the learned Single Judge had directed the Assistant Director of Town Planning to

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32855-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

immediately proceed to the spot and ensure that no construction activity is carried out in the property in question. The court had also clarified that the said construction activities would also include internal works. The compliance affidavit is filed on behalf of accused Nos. 1 to 3 setting out that the accused has complied with the orders of the Court by issuing notices under Section 248 (1) and (2), confirmation notice dated 30.04.2024 under Section 248 (3) and the demolition order dated 02.07.2024 under Section 356 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 . The affidavit also encloses therewith photographs which indicate that property in question is sealed. In the circumstances, willful disobedience of the order passed by the Court, is not established.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for BBMP states that the necessary steps are being taken in regard to the unauthorized construction.

¶35

In so far as the order dated 22.04.2024 is concerned, the learned Single Judge had directed that the architect's report be filed which has not been filed. The learned Single Judge is not precluded from taking any adverse view, if warranted.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:32855-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

In the given circumstances, we do not consider it apposite to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The complaint is accordingly closed.

¶40

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶42

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Mr G Rabinathan v. Sri. Tushar Girinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr G Rabinathan v. Sri. Tushar Girinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Chandra Naik N Vs Sri.Kantharaju

Sri. Venkataramu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnappa Y H Vs the State of Karnataka

Jupiter Capital Private Limited Vs Amica Financial Technologies Private Limited

Mr. Baburao Jivappa Hanamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S N N Constructions Vs Union of India