IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.2049 OF 2018 AND CCC NOS.76-77 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. MR. DENNIS D’SOUZA SON OF PAUL D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BALAKUDRU, HANGARAKATTE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
2. RADHAKRISHNA NAYAK SON OF PUTTU NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BALAKUDRU, HANGARKATTE POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
3. GANESH DEVADIGA SON OF SHEENA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MATADA BETTU, BALAKUDRU POST HANGARKATTE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. L.K. ATHEEQ MAJOR IN AGE, SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
(ACCUSED NO.1 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2019) 2. MR. MOHAN RAJ MAJOR IN AGE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UDUPI TALUK PANCHAYATH, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.
3. MR. SUBHASH KHARVI MAJOR IN AGE, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, IRODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRODI VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
4. SMT. UMADEVI WIFE OF B. KESHAVA KUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BALAKUDRU, PANDESHWARA VILLAGE, SASTHANA POST, UDUPI TALUK-576 101.
5. SRI B. KESHAVA KUNDAR SON OF M.K. SHREYAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BALAKUDRU, PANDESHWARA VILLAGE, SASTHANA POST, UDUPI TALUK-576 101.
... ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAYANA SHREE A.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR A2; SRI A.S. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR A3;
SRI S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV. FOR A4 TO A5;
A1 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2019) THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DELIBERATE ACT OF ACCUSED NUMBERS 1 TO 5 OF HAVING VIOLATED THE EXPRESS DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ISSUED ON THE 27.01.2017, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.53083 OF 2016; TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DELIBERATE ACT OF ACCUSED NUMBERS 1 TO 5 OF HAVING VIOLATED THE INTERIM DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2017 ON 20.03.2017 AND ETC.
***** THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 27.01.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.53083 of 2016, has been disobeyed. In terms of the aforesaid order, the writ petition was disposed off granting liberty to the complainant to seek clearance and trade licence from the concerned Departments and only thereafter, to carry on the business activities, etc. Since the same was disobeyed, the instant petition is filed.
2. In the interregnum, the respondents therein had filed a Writ Appeal No.1570 of 2017, wherein by the order dated 20.03.2017, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo as on the date, in relation to the factory in question and that the appellant therein could run the factory only on compliance of all the formalities.
3. It is presently pleaded by the learned counsel for the complainants’ that the undertaking given by the accused - fifth respondent herein has not been complied with. Objections have been filed by the respondents.
4. We have considered the objections and the order of the learned Single Judge. It is narrated at para-4 of the order that while issuing notice in the writ petition, by an order dated 20.10.2016, an undertaking was given by the husband of the writ petitioner. However, he is not a party to the writ petition and has been arrayed as accused No.5 herein. We have also considered the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2016, which has been produced along with the counter affidavit filed by accused No.5. It was noted in the order that an undertaking of the husband of the writ petitioner was filed to the effect that he would shift his old fish cutting unit within three months to the new place of business, which has been constructed by his wife. Since the undertaking has not been complied with, the instant petition is filed.
5. On considering the reasons assigned as well as the objections, we do not find any ground to proceed further. Firstly, is the fact that the fifth respondent herein was not a party before the learned Single Judge. He is the husband of the writ petitioner. Secondly, he has given an undertaking that he would shift his old fish cutting unit to the new place of business constructed by his wife. Since all the clearances are yet to be issued, the question of shifting to a new place would not arise for consideration. He has also produced various documents to the said effect. Therefore, the question of shifting to a new place would arise only after all necessary formalities are completed. The said matter is pending consideration before the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal.
6. Under these circumstances, we find no ground to proceeding further. The contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped. However, the complainants are at liberty to pursue such remedies available in law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ