IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ C.C.C. No.103/2019 & C.C.C.Nos.967-971/2019 (CIVIL) IN W.P.No.5050/1992 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. S.R. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE M.P. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. M.R. INDRAPRAKASH S/O. LATE M.P. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. M.R. DEVISUBHASHINI D/O. LATE M.P. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. M.R. THRINESH KUMAR S/O. LATE M.P. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. M.R. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. LATE M.P. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6. M.R. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.P. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO.360, JATTIBEEDI, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI K.M. RAGHU, S/O. LATE MURUGESH, #13, BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE, SHIVAJI MAIN ROAD, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY – 570 007. ... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI A.G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. P.S. KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, THE COMMISSIONER, THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE. ... ACCUSED ***** THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT. WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN VIEW OF THE DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 10/11/1998 IN W.P.NO.5050/1992 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 6,914 days in filing these contempt petitions. I.A.No.2/19 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the contempt petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the complainants contended that originally, the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos.2 to 6 M.P.Rajanna had filed W.P.No.5050/1992 before this Court, which was disposed of on 10/11/1998. Subsequently, M.P.Rajanna, the writ petitioner died on 26/05/2007. Thereafter, the complainants have obtained survivorship certificate and have preferred these contempt petitions, which were filed on 19/01/2019. That the delay has occurred due to bona fide and unintentional reasons on account of the death of original writ petitioner M.P.Rajanna. Subsequently, his legal representatives have taken steps for implementation of order dated 10/11/1998 as there is a willful disobedience of the same by the accused. Hence, at least notice may be issued to the accused for the purpose of condonation of delay. It is further contended by learned counsel for the complainants that subsequent to order dated 10/11/1998, passed in W.P.No.5050/1992, the original writ petitioner and the complainants herein had made a number of representations to the accused for the purpose of implementation of the directions issued by this Court, but in vain. Hence, the delay may not come in the way of implementation of order dated 10/11/1998.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the complainants and on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, we have also perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5050/1992, dated 10/11/1998. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“7. Now, the question is whether it is at the prevailing market rate as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent or at the very rate which was allotted to the petitioner earlier. So far as the value at which the site is to be allotted to the petitioner is concerned, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to allot the site in question at a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- at which rate the site was earlier agreed to be sold to the third party. I have fixed the amount at the said amount taking into account that the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 1992 seeking for allotment of the site in question in his favour. In the light of the discussion made above, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as stated above. Therefore, I make the following order:-
(i) The respondent is directed to allot site No.29/1C which was earlier allotted to the petitioner at a total sital value of Rs.2,50,000/-.
(ii) While calculating the amount payable by the petitioner, the respondent shall give deduction to a sum of Rs.550/- already paid by the petitioner and also a sum of Rs.1,700/- payable to the petitioner by the respondents towards the value of the compensation of the house.
The respondent shall issue fresh order of allotment as directed above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and the petitioner is given three months’ time from the date of receipt of the said order to pay the sital value as determined above. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to grant such extension of time to pay the sital value if the respondent is of the opinion that such extension should be granted. In terms stated above, this petition is allowed and disposed of.”
It is noted that the aforesaid directions were issued on 10/11/1998. The original writ petitioner M.P.Rajanna did not take steps for the implementation of the same. He died on 26/05/2007. Subsequently, his legal representatives have now filed these contempt petitions on 19/01/2019. It is noted that the accused is presently holding the office of the Commissioner of the Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore, whereas the directions were issued way back in November 1998. Under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the limitation period for actions for contempt has been stated, which clearly states that no Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of which the contempt has been alleged to have been committed. In the instant case, when directions were issued by this Court in favour of the original writ petitioner M.P.Rajanna and he did not take any step for initiating contempt action against the then accused during his life time and he died on 26/05/2007, subsequently, after eleven years, his legal representatives have sought to initiate contempt proceedings. We do not think that such belated initiation of contempt proceedings can be entertained by this Court. Entertaining the same would be contrary to the prescribed period of limitation under Section 20 of the said Act. The Commissioner who is presently holding the office cannot be held responsible to a direction issued to the then Commissioner in the year 1998. In the circumstances, I.A.No.2/2019 is dismissed. Consequently, the contempt petition is also dismissed.
4. However, liberty is reserved to the complainants to seek any other remedy in accordance with law.
In view of dismissal of these contempt petitions, I.A.No.4/2019 is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*