IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD C.C.C. NO.1820 OF 2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI.GOVINDAPPA K.C. S/O.LATE CHIKKADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS NO.245, 6TH CROSS CANARA BANK COLONY NAGARABHAVI ROAD BENGALURU – 560 072.
....COMPLAINANT (BY SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI RAKESH SINGH COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 020.
….ACCUSED (SRI M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.17501/2014, DATED 15/07/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ETC., THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 15.07.2014 passed in W.P.No.17501 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms whereof, petitioner was permitted to make an application and on making such application, the respondent – Bengaluru Development Authority was directed to consider the same within three months.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-BDA stating that even though a representation has been made, there is no application in the prescribed form for allotment of the site.
4. The same is countered by the complainant’s counsel by producing the Photostat of the application form.
5. We have considered the same. The same does not bear any date at all. The material would indicate that even though substantial representations have been made, there is no valid application made by the petitioner.
6. The same is countered by the complainant’s counsel by relying on Annexure-‘C’ dated 25.04.2015 to indicate the acknowledgement for having made an application for allotment of site from the BDA. The said endorsement by the BDA is dated 5/10-3-2015. The endorsement with regard to the application made by the complainant is of a much earlier than the date of the acknowledgement filed by the complainant himself. Therefore, we do not find that all is well insofar as the application made by the complainant is concerned.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any reasons to proceed further. Hence, the contempt proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB