IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF' SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT THE HoN'sLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF " AND THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE c:i--iELi,1,iR'T ccc NO. 249;/2o1o'»g.cC1v1_Ig - ' BETWEEN A it K.Srikanth Rao, __ Aged about 42 years, A The Commissioner, H City Municipal 4CVo1__1nci:i', _ _ ~ Madikeri, Kod'ag,o.District, [Describedjh the'-srVdez'«.a.sV' ' ' ' Chief Officer, ifi _ V . _. ...Complainant [By Sri N.Dexradas§;, Seliior Counsel, for __ M / s._§ANyaEya.mitra Advocates.) ' " ' ~ . ' 'Madiker_i,'' Kodagu District. ab.Gu_tj34 years, Market Cofilplex, Shop No. 15/ 197, . . Accused . .. [By Sri.K*.*Chandrashekar 8: Sri.C.H.Jadhav, Advocates) tr " 2 This CCC is filei under Section 11 & 12 of the ,. contempt of Court Act, it is prayed thatthis Hon'b1e Court be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for disobeying direction dated 24.06.2008 passed in W.P.1\Io.4267}/2002(LB--RES)..c/W W.P.No.43382/ 2002 and order of the division bench dated 24.02.2009 in W.A.l\i_o.1108/2008 (LB-RES}-.yi.d'e. AnneXure--A 8: B. ' __ This CCC coming on for orders 'w JUSTICE passed the 'following: OWER J.S.K.HEHA.R. C.J. [OraI): V The accused--respondentHelliifilfigilcjiledl Hdourt by
filing a writ petition. petition was
dismissed one” passed by this
Court directed the accused
respondentto of the shop taken
on lease by Vlriirrif. three months. Despite the
.0 V’ pQssessioi’1″Was not handed over.
._ order dated 24.6.2008 was assailed by the
‘VVacciilsed’§.respondent by filing a writ appeal. The
:f_’afore«said Writ appeal was also dismissed on 24.2.2008.
‘ Still possession remained with the accusedwrespondent.
3. The instant contempt petition came to be filed
at the hands of the Municipal Council, Madikeri on
account of the disobedience of the orders passed by this
Court. After the accused–respondent
appearance, he stated that he had H
possession of the shop in question”cn_
aforesaid factual position is conlirrried by
counsel for the complainant#’petitioner;pltis. ‘therefore.
submitted by the the accused-
respondent that since possession been handed
over, the order};:ppa.ss.ed€L Cotirt stands fully
complied V V C
4;’~._HavingV’e§;a:nined””the matter in its entirety, we
are the vievifitlhat the lapse at the hands of the
.acc.used-respondent in not voluntarily obeying orders
Court is very serious. As long as a
g conternpt petition had not been filed at the hands of the
Council, Madikeri, [so as to enforce the
directions issued by this Court], possession of the
leased shop was not handed over to the complainant-
petitioner. Orders of this Court need to be complied with
TY ‘ SA/vxcares
unilaterally. The accused–respondent and others
similarly situate as him having not abided by this
Courts orders [referred to above), consequently
as 78 contempt petitions had to be .
comp1air1a.nt–petitioner to enforcethe di_re’ctionsV’isvsuedu it”
by this Court. Besides resulitingi “in
expense, this action of the”‘-accus’ed–resdpondent ‘has ” ‘
resulted in unnecessary ‘of. Cot1″rt-tirne. We,
therefore, consider it to impose
costs on tk’v”The accused-
respondenif’ to pay costs
quantified’ five thousand). While
paying:VV”the’_ accused–respondent shall
deposit Rst.”1w0u,’OOO/–AA'{ten”ttVthousand) with the Karnataka
t””*~estate* setcouVtiet1;”Rs.1o,ooo/- with the Advocates
Bvangalore, and the remaining Rs.5,000/–
(fiVe4__V with the cornp1ainant–i\/Iunicipal
xi””–__VV”»(jounci1..Ad:1\/Iadikeri. Receipts thereof, shall be placed on
the record within one month from today, failing which,
…the Registry is directed to re–1ist this case for motion
hearing, so as to enforce payment of costs.
5. The instant contempt petition is disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
sd/;e<?§Fa}s
chae£1»:ssti¢e
Iudgs
Sk/ —
Index: yes /no