IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th 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.104 OF 2019 AND C.C.C.NO.152 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUDHA WIFE OF LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PRABHATH HOTEL, OPP. VOKKALIGARA HOSTEL, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573 201.
2. SRI R.RANGASWAMY SON OF SRI R.V.MUNIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PRABHAT HOTEL, OPP. VOKKALIGARA HOSTEL, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573 201.
....COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI PRAKASH G.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. ROHINI SINDHOORI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.
2. SRI B.A.PARAMESH CITY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN-573 201.
….ACCUSED (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR A1 SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR A2) THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.56747-748/2018 (LB-RES).
THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos.56747-748 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms whereof, the petitioners were permitted to file their reply by 27.01.2019 and were directed to be present on the said date at 11.00 a.m. before respondent No.4. The respondent - Authority shall be at liberty to carry out inspection by fixing the date on 27.01.2019 in the presence of the jurisdictional Town Planning Member.
3. Complainants’ counsel submits that the building has been demolished in terms of the order dated 10.01.2019. Hence, this contempt.
4. A reply affidavit is filed by accused No.2.
He has submitted that the complainants appeared on 27.12.2018 and all proceedings were completed and thereafter, the building was demolished in accordance with law. He has further submitted that an application was moved before the learned Single Judge with regard to an error in mentioning the date in the order. By order dated 19.02.2019 on hearing both sides, the order was corrected. It was held therein that the order dated 20.12.2018 is to be read as if the parties are required to be present on 27.12.2018. Therefore, the order was accordingly corrected.
5. The contention of the complainants is that the same would affect the proceedings initiated on them, which is negated by the learned Single Judge.
6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to proceed further as the complainants themselves appeared before the authority by considering the date of appearance as 27.12.2018. Under these circumstances, the contempt proceedings are dropped.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE PB