IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NO.384 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
V. RAMAIAH SON OF LATE N. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.44/1, 11TH MAIN, ‘D’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
(BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI KAPIL MOHAN SECRETARY TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, MAJOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
... COMPLAINANT (A-1 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.04.2018) 2. SRI RAKESH SINGH MAJOR, COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, B.D.A. COMPLEX, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-250 020.
3. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA WIFE OF B. A. RAMACHANDRAPPA, MAJOR, DOOR NO.1225/A, PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 025.
(A-3 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.04.2018) (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR A-2) ... ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE THE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HIS WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26.04.2017, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.2933 OF 2015 (BDA) ***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2017, passed in Writ Petition No.2933 of 2015, has been disobeyed.
2. The accused has filed a counter affidavit indicating that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and an endorsement dated 03.07.2018, at Annexure-R1 has been issued. Yet another Affidavit is filed in the Court today, furnishing unconditional apology for the delay in considering the representation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the same and contends that the relief sought for by him has not been granted.
4. However, we are unable to accept such a submission. By the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. The same having been considered, we do not find any ground to proceed further. The petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the endorsement issued by the respondent, in the manner known to law.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ