High Court Karnataka High Court

S Gopal S/O Late Shamanna Alias … vs Subhir Hari Singh Ias on 27 July, 2010

Karnataka High Court
S Gopal S/O Late Shamanna Alias … vs Subhir Hari Singh Ias on 27 July, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE: 271% DAY OF JULY, 2o1_'.o.,'_n
:PRESENT:   ' 3t
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUsfr;oE N.1£;PaL'r;t"A'~:: 4- _ 3  "
AND  4' u M  ' 
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JU;SufrICA13iA.V_'A;S.V Boi=..e§S'1sfA  
c.e.c. No. 891"MAo§'2o'V1o  

€1'1I

Betwe

vaPuVrnapra.g':na..Sch

S. Gopal, V  
S / o. Lat(<:Sham§_1nna,'* 
Alias l\Eanjij1I1dappa£ L '"
Age(i''52«.yéar;é:, '' t V" =
NO.1098_,f V'

 oo:I Road... 

 }""I.A.L." St'Eig€.--.' t _
:vNew'ThiPP.€1Sa11dfa,  -- '

Banga1o1'eg5SO0'?--5. ' '~ . 
t A V  Complainant

 Vatadafajan, Advocate)

  :A1fJ,'d--'.  M ~ 

smir Hari Singh. IAS.

" Secretary, Housing 81 Urban

Development Department,
Karnataka Government Secretariat,
M.S. Building,

Bangalore -- 560 01.

J



2 Siddiah,
Commissioner,
Bangaiore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West,
Bangaiore --- 560 020.

(By Sri. I.G. Gachchinamath, AdVc¢cate"for 1'\«--2,:." it  
A-1--Served,] I  _}  .  V

 

This c.c.c. [Civil] is iiied"'~1inder &'°12 or

the Contempt of Courts   to take
cognizance of the conteifipt c--;omVmitt.e_d.VTb3,r. the Accused in not
compiying with the directions'  its order dated:
9-i0-2009 passed._in  ~{s'DA) and deal with

them in  with'W1aw,.._.--i:ij'* theidinterest of justice and
equity; ~~~~   N M

This-- (V3.C:,C'::_tj{CiViI)~.c.omiI1g on for orders this day,
N.K.Patfi. made the foi3.owing:

: ORDER :

or petition is filed by the complainant

with a.~praj,%*’er to take cognizance of the contempt committed

shy the:’Accused in not complying with the directions

‘A.V_’issued by learned Single Judge of this Court dated

” –7§9.1O.2OO9 in W.P.No.1 17/2007 Vide Annexure«A, in

/

the interest of justice and equity.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the

complainant and learned counsel for Accused._:”l’Jo.2.

Learned counsel appearing for Accused No.2;’_'”‘has

Memo dated 27.7.2010 along yvith ;


and the order passed by the 
Accused No.2. The same is on     it t

3. It is stated in  filed

along with the copy orddém dated 26.7.2010

and the orde1fipa__ssed”by’ ‘authority of the

Accusedttv that, the directions
issued’«hy the.VV’le.arn’edi”~$ingle Judge of this Court as

referred ahoyve has complied with by the authority

. therefore, theminstant contempt proceeding may be

the light of the statements made by the

xlearned: Counsel appearing for the accused No.2 in the

it and after going through the order passed by the

” ‘–“t3ompetent authority of the accused No.2 dated

74/

24.7.2010 the instant contempt proceedings stands

dropped, reserving liberty to the Compiainant.’t.p:’-«sgssvaii

the correctness of the order dated

advised or need arises. Ordered.:aecQrdihgIjf.’7;»

tsn*