IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CCC NO.1991 OF 2018 (CIVIL) & CCC NO.2556 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.PRAKASH S/O ANJAANAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/A JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 2. SMT.ANJANAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED MAJOR R/A JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 (BY SRI.RAVICHANDRA S N, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.KARIGOWDA ... COMPLAINANTS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RURAL, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE BUILDING REVENUE COMPLEX CHAMPANAKALU DEVANAHALLI TQ. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 562 110.
2. SRI.NAGARAJ THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 3. SRI.MANJUNATH R S/O RAMAIAH TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 064 4. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE P.MUTHAPPA HUNASAMARANAHALLI JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 157 ... ACCUSED THESE CCC’S ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ISSUE NOTICE OF CONTEMPT TO THE CONTEMNORS AND APPROPRIATELY PUNISH AND PROSECUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR DISOBEYING AND BREACHING THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN W.P.NO.14707/2018 & 15578/2018 & 15676/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THESE CONTEMPT CASES COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Against Interim order dated passed 16th April, 2018 by this Court, this Contempt Petition is filed. The Interim Order is staying the order dated 18th August, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. The counsel for the contempt petitioner submits that this was brought to the notice of the respondent by representation Annexure-B, dated 17th April 2018. Despite the same, the name of the petitioner has been deleted and the name of the other respondents has been included in the RTC. Hence, the respondents have committed an act of contempt wilfully and deliberately.
2. We have gone through the entries made in the RTC. The interim order is granted staying the order dated 18th August, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Despite the same, the name of the petitioner has been deleted. Copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner has also not been produced. Under the circumstance, we hold that in case if the respondent have acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court, it is always open for the contempt petitioner to make a complaint before the learned Single Judge who has passed the interim order, under Section 215 of the Constitution of India.
Observing thus, this contempt petition stands dropped.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Lnn