Smt M Mangala vs Sri Siddaiah Ias on 4 February, 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4*" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2'0§ifo_%T:"ATu

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC.E~~'.l..G. sA3'IHA;'w'i'r.'_'T:V'.  A

AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE-...s.N."s:§TvA'a;A~:=;AAvvATNA

c.c.c. N9.759/.2TB0«9"'(.CIVTL')...,. 

BETWEEN

sm" M      
AGED,A'BiZ)_UT 49 'YEARS, 
VWT/0A.RANG:m?.A3»TV."" 
'rNo._13, 'r9sm,'v.A EL}:-LDLNG
'2ND.cRoss=, '  
RA~:\:AsIni'c;I-'i'.=iE.1f"---._
_BAN'GAl..0VR--E  "
' " A. . COMPLAINANT.

gum».---

SRI SIDDAIAH IAS

COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTN



2

BANGALORE 550 020

ACCUSEDW1rs

(By Sri : PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADv;.~;--~.'_.j;_.'..'__ji'  

ccc FILED u/s 11 & 12 DE  cDé3E1'EM--pIE:_'D.,;g':'
coum ACT PRAYING _To iN2[:"'.'."IATE:g_§()vN'TE'M'PTV'-  
PROCEEDINGS AGAINsr '------.,jHE'" ._'A'CvCVt;i:S'E:Vi5""" 'FOR "

DISOBEYING THE ORDl_L-ER-.E_ D_ATE'D«--._:O8.VVO9.20O9
PASSED IN w.Pfio.2:t;'524V)'2LD.()9.% (BDA) VIDE
ANNEXURE-A. H "  " "  

frifiiisxA.i:DN%§VE'M_I§§Tf_'Psflfiow COMING on FOR
ORDERS" _TH1'sL'fAApvAx;;--..,?sABHAH_IT J., MADE THE
|=o1_LowmG:,-~ _  

V   is present in person.

 Z' This complaint is filed alleging

  -ifiisfléedience to the direction issued by this Court in

..._\fii.P. No.21574/2009 dated 08.09.2009, wherein, 

V direction was issued to the Bangaiore Development

\%~/'



'\

3
Authority to consider the representation of the

petitioner -- compfainant herein in accordan(;e»._}}\'ri_th

iaw and in the light of the directions;"i's's~i:ed_:':

JUNJAMMA AND omens vs.

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY he-pq.r4te:.d"'-.iri'._'3:--:.Rwe'aoog-37

Karnataka 608.

3. Notice  respondent.

4. T;he’rje7 iis ‘j-V.””-compliance as
representa_tio:n;,.'”of» “‘coni’»piainant has been
considVerVedi*A»..i§y as per the order
dated counsef appearing for

the VC_ompi’aina~nt” aiisovsdoes not dispute that the

‘xi’prepresentation isiwnow considered and he submits

V””._i_tha_t’..t:heVrvéoeinjplainant may be given iiberty to

the endorsement issued by the

‘v.,.respo’n,dAent on merits.

W

4

5. Having regard to the above said facts,

we are satisfied that there is no Vviliiieifui

disobedience to the direction issued by

Accordingly, the Contempt “is

dismissed. Respondent is dis;chapr4ged”;.eT

the complainant to work o’ut7–hereV.v-‘re.nfied§;

accordance with law on iimseirits irrresgject of the
endorsement issuediay the re’s9o,n’dent.

V’ some