IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH C.C.C.NO.240 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
C.MUNISWAMY, SON OF LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAMMANAYAKANA HALLI AT & POST, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI.M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.MAHADEVAIAH, TAHASHILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 106. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMATH, AGA) THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING NOT COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.27977/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 16.03.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.27977 of 2017 has been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the said order, respondent No.3 was directed to place the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.4-Committee in an expeditious manner. Since the same having been disobeyed, the instant petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the accused, wherein he has stated in para No.6 that the then Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, had submitted a letter to the Government Advocate stating that he would submit the application of the petitioner before the Bagarhukum Saguvali Committee on 24.03.2018, but the proceedings did not take place on the said date and it has been adjourned to 28.3.2018. By then, the model code of conduct for the Karnataka Assembly Constituency came into force. After the expiry of the outgoing Committee, no new Committee has been formed. Hence, the accused was incapable of proceeding further.
4. The order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that the 3rd respondent was directed to place the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.4 in an expeditious manner. However, as narrated in para Nos.6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, there is no Committee before which the application could be filed. The learned AGA, on instructions, submits that as and when the Committee is formed, the application of the petitioner would be placed before the said Committee as expeditiously as possible. His undertaking is placed on record. In view of the same, we do not find any ground to proceed further.
Hence, proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Cs/-