IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CCC NOs.1518-1523 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. MR.MOHAN RAMACHANDRAN S/O RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. MR.C.R.BALHEEKA RAJA S/O LATE M RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3. MR. MADHUSUDHAN RAMACHANDRAN S/O RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 4. MR. MARIGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 5. MR VANAMOHAN S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.99, (OLD NO.44) RAMARAJU NILAYA, 1ST TEMPLE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 03 (BY SRI.S G HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
MR.N.MANJUNATHA PRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 027 (BY SRI.V.SRINIDHI, ADV.) ... COMPLAINANTS ... ACCUSED THESE CCC’S ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,1971, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE OF DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.3676/2008 AND W.P.NOS. 43472-43474/2011 (GM- RES-PIL) DATED 19.02.2014.
THESE CCC’S COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R An undertaking has been made by the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike in the writ petition No.3676 of 2008 and connected writ petitions undertaking that the Palike would not issue trade licence in the residential area.
2. The learned counsel for the contempt petitioners submits that contrary to the undertaking given to this Court, the respondent-accused has given trade licence in the residential area.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that these contempt petitions are not maintainable since the contempt petitioners are not parties in the Public Interest Litigation; and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they could make a representation to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, or else, could approach this Court by filing appropriate Writ petition.
4. We have gone through the observation made at paragraph 9 in the order passed in Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No.3676 of 2008 and connected petitions. The same reads thus:
“9. We have also noticed that several impleading applications i.e. IA No.III/2013, IV/2013, V/2013, X/2013 and XIII/2013 have been filed by private parties ventilating their grievances with regard to the issues which have been raised in these writ petitions and particularly, with regard to the interim orders dated 25.01.2012 as well as 13.12.2012. We do not think that those applications which are in fact private interest litigations could be considered along with these public interest litigations. Therefore, we dispose of all the applications seeking impleadment by permitting the impleading applications to file separate and independent petitions to be considered by the Bench having roster.”
5. In the facts and circumstances, we hold that these contempt petitioners are not maintainable. In case, if the contempt petitioners are so aggrieved, it is for them to approach the Writ Court or any appropriate Court for appropriate relief and in case the order is in their favour and that if the order is contravened or disobeyed by the respondents, then it is open for the petitioners to file contempt petition. With these observations, these contempt petitions stand dropped.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE lnn