IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD C.C.C.No.121 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
Kavita Podwal D/o Late. Shri K V M Poduval Aged about 49 years Permanent resident of No.11 Makara Jyoti, Narayana Reddy Layout Behind Atlanta School Doddanekundi, Bangalore-560 037. Temporarily residing at 143 Shivananda Nagar N T Post, Bangalore-75. …. Complainant (By Smt. Kavita Podwal, Party-in-Person) AND Mr.N.Manjunath Prasad The Commissioner BBMP Major, S/o Not Known Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Pallike Corporation Circle Bengaluru-560 002. …Accused This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt Courts Act, 1971 praying to take cognizance of the willful disobedience of the order dated: 28.04.2016 in Writ Appeal Nos.967-968/2016 appended as Annexure-B and the order dated:01.08.2017 in IA.No.II/2016 of Writ Appeal Nos.967- 968/2016 appended as Annexure-C and further to punish the accused Commissioner, BBMP in accordance with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
This CCC, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, NAGARATHNA J., made the following:
ORDER Heard the complainant, who is appearing in person, at length.
2. The grievance of the complainant is that there is willful disobedience of the order dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.A.Nos.967-968/2016 (Annexure-B) and the order dated 01.08.2017 passed on I.A.No.II/2016 in the aforesaid writ appeal (Annexure-C). Therefore, the complainant has sought for action to be initiated against the accused – Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike.
3. Briefly stated, the genesis of this complaint lies in action initiated by the accused under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Whatever may be the grievance of the complainant with regard to the said action is concerned, the pertinent facts are that this Court in W.A.Nos.967-968/2016 had directed the accused to consider the representation made by the complainant and dispose of the case after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned in the matter within two months from the date of receipt of such representation uninfluenced by the final order passed under sub- section (3) of Section 321 of the aforesaid Act. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has also observed that till disposal of such representation by the accused, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as on that day. Being aggrieved by that order, complainant filed SLP Nos.15924-15925/2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, by order dated 21.11.2016, disposed off the Special Leave Petitions by directing this Court to pass orders on I.A.No.II/2016 which was pending consideration in the aforesaid writ appeals on the day it was disposed off and which had not been disposed off by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 01.08.2017 passed orders on I.A.No.II/2016. Paragraph 22 of the said order consists the direction issued, which are extracted as under:
“In the premise, (i) I.A.No.II of 2016 is allowed with costs;
(ii) The Commissioner, BBMP, shall comply with the order dated April 28, 2016, post-haste, by taking applicant’s representation dated May 2, 2016, on record and dispose of the same expeditiously and in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(iii) The applicant and the sixth respondent shall appear before the Commissioner, BBMP on August 7, 2017 and collect further dates of hearing if any;
(iv) The Commissioner, BBMP, shall make available certified copies of the mahazar drawn at the spot before commencing demolition, CD containing the video coverage, if any, to the applicant, after collecting applicable fee, in accordance with law;
(v) After hearing the parties, if the Commissioner, BBMP, comes to the conclusion that the demolition of applicant’s dwelling house was illegal, he shall quantify the damages and pay the same within two weeks from the date of his order; and (vi) Cost payable by the respondent-BBMP to the applicant is quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).”
4. The complainant submits that pursuant to the said direction, she has appeared before the accused, who has considered her representation and passed an order on 24.01.2018, a copy of which is at Annexure-A. The grievance of the complainant is with regard to the rejection of her representation as not maintainable in law and facts.
5. The detailed narration of facts above would clearly indicate that the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been complied with by the accused. If the complainant is aggrieved by the rejection of her representation by order dated 24.01.2018 made by the accused, it is for her to challenge the same in accordance with law. We find that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with by the accused and therefore regarding the same we do not find any reason to entertain this contempt petition any further. Hence, it is disposed reserving liberty to the complainant to assail the order at Annexure-A, if thought fit.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-