'. A. ~ ..... ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13'1"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
PRESENT"
THE HONBLE MR..J.S.KHEHAR. CHIEF
THE HON'BLE i\/ERSJUSTICE MANJUL.A.,C}iEi;LCR " 'A
CCCNO. 248/2OE?:JC)((::fV'1i;}_TT V
BETWEEN C
Kfirikanth Rae,
Aged about 42 years, .
The Commissioner, ' . _
City Municipal Council; 'C I " C'
Maciikeri, Kociagu Dist:iiC,t'.'-.V V
{Described in_t.'ei§é 0_rde§{r as V
Chief Officer,3._Mz§ii'iii<eri~
MuniC3ipa1i'C'CI<iQci_é:;gu ' D:i'si:_1__'i::'t} .
C V . ...C0mp1ainant
(By Sri N.'I)evadasvs,AAS<C§'r;i'i)r Counsel for
M /f§;Ny a,yan1i'trg_i" Advocates . )
-V Madi}<.:e'riV, Kodagu District.
Aged «aboifl: __ 'fie ars.
Maijkef. C.om_.pieX, Shop N0.6/ 154,
...AcC,usec1
= K.A.Chandrash€:ka1', 81 Sri C.H.Jadhav,
-- A§iv0Cai'.es)
This CCC is fiiei under Section 11 &. 12 of the
contempt of Court Act, by the complainant. where in he
prays thatihis Hon'bie Court, be pieased to Initiate
contempt proceedlngs against the accused for
disobeying direction dated 24.06.2008 passed in
W.P.No.426'7E./2002{LrB»RES) c./W. W.P.No.43382;/2002
and order of the division bench dated 24.02..«2009_"'£_n
VV.A.N0. I 108/2008 (LB--RES) Vide A;1nexuremA~«~&.'i' , A'
This CCC coming on for orders
JUSTICE passed the following:
ORIJER 0 ' 0;
J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral): A
T he accused-respondent'ahppfoachedd thJ_s.~€3ourt by
filing a wrli: pet1t1on.”0″‘i2h’e petltlon was
dismissed on passed by this
Courtfion Court directed the accused
respondenf of the shop taken
on jgease hy wfithin three months. Despite the
piaforuesadidp, possession was not handed over.
harder dated 24.8.2008 was assailed by the
ace’i3sed’~i’es,LpoI1dent. by fiiing a writ appeal. The
R af0r_esa1’d writ: appeal was also dismissed on 24.2.2008,
_ “;’3t.ii}”possessi0ii. remained wiih the accused~respondent.
be
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. The accused respondent has been identified by
the learned counsel representing him. He hasf_ha’ndeléi._
over the key of the shop in quest.iuo-nV the,
Commissioner, City Mumeipallb Coujnjeili, ‘ElVl’adil{erill.VrAi_nA’
Court today in token of ha:11d__ingloL_re’I’ list
therefore, submitted by theClC”=learnedll for the
accusedwrespondent since po’s.s_e.s’s~ion has now been
handed over, the ordervwpassed ;(l:’:{3i’.l1″‘t stands fully
complied
4.” llHa*.zii’1g efigamlined th.el”rnatter in its entirety. we
are_{of the lthai: the lapse at the hands of the
,Aaeenseid.§i-esp_ondent in not voluntarily obeying orders
“passed” Court is Very serious. As long as a
Conlitenijiat petition had not been filed at the hands of the
Mu.nici1:§al Council, Madikeri. (so as to enforce the
Aldviredions issued by this Court), possession of the
“leased shop was not handed over to the eomplainantm
petitioner. Orders of this Court need to be complied with
unilateiaily. The E1(ICuSE3d4I’€Sp£)’I}ClE?11l. and others
similarly situate as him having not ahided by this
Courts orders {referred to above), (?()I1S€q11€I1l.ly 21sV.;1§:~.§ny
as 78 eomtempt petitions had to he
complainant«petiiioiier to e11fo3*ee_,the_ dir_eelt’i’oi3’_s;.. ilS’SV{i€Ci.,v
by this Court. Besides res:1.1tiAng§_A_’lih
expense, this action of
resulted in “unnecessary We,
therefore, consider it to impose
costs on the–::,;he accused»
respondent? to pay costs
quantified” five tihousand). While
payi1\§ ecteusedwrespondeni. shall
deposit Rs.l419,_GDQ’;’« A{telr1~* ::El1OLiS’c).11(l] with the Karnataka
88.1′”-C0uhCliE’;”‘”Rs.10,000/– with the Advocates
‘ .. _ Bangalore, and the remaining
thousanci) with the eompiainanig
M.Lif;–iCi}:_:é1l'(i’i}u11Cil, Maciikeri. Receipts thereof, shall he
l”;)l23;C€(3l -on the record within one month from. today,
l fafilzinrf’ which. the Registry is directed to 1’e««list this Case
l he wf(_>f1* motion h.ea1*ing, so as to e11for(:e paynlent of ctosis.