IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL C.C.C.No.534/2017 (Civil) BETWEEN:
Sri Praveen Kumar, S/o late Vijay Singh, Aged about 47 years, Director, N.T.I. Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., No.G-5, Palace Orchard Apartments, No.51, 9th Main, 6th ‘A’ Cross, RMV Extension, Bengaluru – 560 080. …Complainant (By Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri Pandurangappa, Age: Major, Father name not known, Working as a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru Region, Pampa Mahakavi Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru – 560 018.
2. Sri Prathapchand Rathod, Age: Major, S/o Peerappa, Incharge Secretary of N.T.I. Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., No.G-5, Palace Orchard Apartments, No.51, 9th Main, 6th ‘A’ Cross, RMV Extension, Bengaluru – 560 080. … Accused This C.C.C. is filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying the Hon’ble High Court to initiate contempt of Court proceeding against the accused No.1 and 2 for willful disobedience of the order dated 1.3.2017 in W.P.No.8633/2017(C-S) passed by this Hon’ble Court, produced herewith as document No.1 and punish the accused in accordance with law.
This C.C.C. coming on for orders this day, K.S. Mudagal J, made the following:
O R D E R The complainant seeks to prosecute the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged disobedience of the order of this Court dated 1.3.2017 passed in W.P.No.8633/2017 (C-S). The said order reads as follows:
“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the caveators counsel, respondent No.3.
Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No.1.
Issue notice to respondent No.2 and other respondents.
Issue rule nisi.
All further proceedings are subject to further orders of the Court.”
2. Thus there is no interim order of stay of further proceedings before the respondents. According to the petitioner himself his application seeking clarification of the above order has been dismissed on 24.3.2017.
3. The complainant contends that the accused No.1 is proceeding with the matter. Since there is no interim stay of further proceedings before the respondents, there is no dis-obedience of Court’s order calling for the contempt proceedings. Therefore petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MD