IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.989 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
M/S. D.N. JOSHI AND CO. CHARTERD ACCOUNTANTS NO.14, ‘SRISAMARTHA’, 60 FT. ROAD PATTEGARAPALYA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 079 BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI DINESH KUMAR N. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. B.S. SHEKARAPPA THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION IN KARNATAKA (KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL DATA SOCIETY) 1-4, 6TH FLOOR, IT PARK RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BENGALURU – 560 010.
2. MR. ARJUN PARVEZ THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT NO.435, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. MRS. M.V. VIJAYALAKSHMI THE JOINT DIRECTOR (FINANCE) DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V.V. TOWER, VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AND CONTEMPT SHOWN TO THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.40620 OF 2018 DATED 19.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS AND THEREBY CAUSE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY.
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.40620 of 2018 has been disobeyed. In terms of the said order, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Since, the same was not done, the instant petition is filed.
2. A compliance affidavit is filed by the accused.
He has tendered his unconditional apology for the delay in complying with the order of the learned Single Judge within the time frame. He has also enclosed Annexure-R1 which indicates consideration of the order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the same, the delay in compliance is condoned.
3. In view of Annexure-R1 being passed and the order of learned Single Judge being complied, we do not find any ground to proceed further.
The proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE ST