IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.1149 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI DODDEGOWDA SON OF LATE CHIKKAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 149.
(BY SRI P.N. VARADARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI ANIL KUMAR SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD-2, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 001.
... COMPLAINANT ... ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 24.06.2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.48312 OF 2012 (LA-KIADB) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND FURTHER ENFORCE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Petition is filed on the ground that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.48312 of 2012 dated 24-06-2013 has been disobeyed.
2. There is a delay in filing this petition. In terms of the order of the learned Single Judge, the compliance was ordered within a period of four months from the date of issuance of the certified copy of the order. The order was passed on 24-06-2013. The instant petition is filed on 09-07-2019, namely, almost after six years. The reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay is that he made a representation 04-01-2017. The same was not considered. Many a times he went to the office of the respondent but nothing happened.
3. On considering the affidavit, we do not find that any sufficient cause has been shown. The order of the learned Single Judge is dated 24-06-2013. The representation even in terms of the affidavit is made only four years thereafter. The limitation would run on the expiry of the time granted by the learned Single Judge. Except making a bald statement that the complainant was approaching the accused, there is nothing concrete to establish the bonafides of the complainant. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient cause shown by the complainant to condone the delay. Hence, the application I.A.No.1 of 2019 for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-