IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NO. 85 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
MR. SURAJ SON OF LATE THOMAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 14, 1ST CROSS, MODI GARDEN, BEHIND PRTC P.O.
ML LINES, J C NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 006.
... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SURAJ, PARTY – IN - PERSON) AND:
SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD, I.A.S THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
.. ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR HAVING NOT IMPLEMENTED THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018, PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.16649 OF 2018, AND GRANT OF SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16649 of 2018, has been disobeyed.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed off taking note of the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.3 therein on an affidavit, wherein it was stated that respondent No.3 has no objection for any asphalting work in the alternate road in question or that they will not interfere with the development and maintenance of the alternate road by the second respondent therein. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to make appropriate representation to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike - respondent No.2 therein for commencement of the related work. There was no other specific direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid order.
3. The complainant – party-in-person submits that the representation given is not considered by the respondent No.2 – BBMP. However, there was no direction by this Court for consideration of the representation to be made by the complainant. It is the choice left to the complainant to make an appropriate representation. Hence, we find that there is no disobedience of the aforesaid order or no direction has been violated. Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA