IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NO.1609 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
IN AND OUT ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS BENGALURU OFFICE AT NO.408 LEVEL 4, PRESTIGE CENTRE POINT CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER GIRISH KUMAR S A) ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI:B.V.SHANKAR NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. N.MANJUNATHA PRASAD, IAS THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. SMT. VASANTHI AMAR B.V THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MADHADEVAPURA ZONE WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 048.
3. MR. SATEESH THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE K.R. PURA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 036.
... ACCUSED (BY SRI:V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR A-1 TO A-3; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 A-4 TO A-6 ARE DELETED) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2018 (ANNEXURE- B) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.19797 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) AND AWARD APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT TO ALL THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2018 AND DIRECT ALL THE ACCUSED TO PAY A SUM OF RS.49,40,141/- (RUPEES FORTY NINE LAKHS FORTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY ONLY) TOWARDS THE FINANCIAL LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE COMPLAINANT COMPANY WHICH IS THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION OF THE HOARDING STRUCTURES, IN WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.05.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.19797 OF 2018 (LB-RES).
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the interim order dated 10.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.19797 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the order dated 10.05.2018, interim stay as prayed for till next date of hearing was granted. It is contended that there was also a prayer to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.49,40,140/- towards the financial loss suffered by the complainant. It is further contended that accused Nos.2 to 5 have demolished two hoarding structures and taken away the material. Therefore, there is a violation of the interim order.
3. An affidavit is filed by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, by denying the fact of pulling down the structure. He has further stated that the accused have not dismantled or demolished the hoarding structures and they are not liable to pay any amount.
4. A rejoinder is filed by the complainant enclosing a compact disc containing the speech given by the Corporator while acknowledging the support extended by accused No.2 for removal of the hoarding.
5. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no ground for initiation of contempt proceedings. What has been granted by the learned Single Judge is interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing. We have considered the prayer sought for by the complainant. It is two fold. Firstly, an interim stay of the impugned order vide Annexure-J is sought for and secondly, an order to restrain the respondents from interfering with the work of erecting of hoarding is sought for. The learned Single Judge has apparently granted only the first part of the prayer sought for. There is no order to restrain the respondents from interfering with the work of erecting of hoarding structures. Therefore, we find that the contention of the complainant is wholly misconceived. In the guise of obtaining the interim stay, what is sought to be pleaded is that it also contains the order of injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the work of erecting of hoarding structures. The interim order does not reflect this in any manner whatsoever.
6. So far as the production of compact disc is concerned, we do not think it is necessary for us to look into it. This is a matter of contempt wherein the order passed by this Court would have to be scrutinized and as to whether they are complied with or disobeyed.
7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that the respondents have committed any contempt. Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
It is needless to state that the prayer seeking for compensation cannot be a subject matter of the contempt petition. The prayer is misconceived and cannot be sought for in a contempt petition. Hence, the prayer is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-