High Court Karnataka High Court

Veerana vs Shri Siddaiah S on 21 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Veerana vs Shri Siddaiah S on 21 October, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE *_

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF ocTQBaR,;2a5g j?,".

P/2ES'£--:m'

THE HON'BLE MRS. Juswrcafimfifiavsg CaSLLu3 " _7

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTIcE "K,N.KEsHAvAHA§A§§NA

c.c.c;_375[2e0é;g;gg§A

EETWEEN
VEERANA _ _ I
s/0 KAN§A§HAIAH
AGED_E4 YEARS; '_*_ .:.g
occ;$ERVICE(pR1VgTEy.,
R/O 1e1I,¥;8T3 CRoss,_ ,
IST PHASE, BANGALORE 72: COMPLAINANT

(By sri;"s E H£§eALLi*§ ? EUNIRAJU}
AND : V % '

»4,sHRI SIDDAI$fi_S
THE CQMISSIONER,
»_ BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
HKGMARA PARK EAST,

'°.;BANGALeRE 20. »%a¢U$EJ>

. " THiS* CCC IS FILED U/SS.l1 & 12 OF THE
' CONTEMP$ OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE
VCONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR

-j_{}D:s0BEYING THE GRDER DTD.O6.03.06 PASSED IN
'_ w;9_ao.1944/20o6(LA--BDA), VIBE ANNEX.C-1.

      7



This ccc coming on for PRLY. HEARINQ; this
day, MANJULA CHELLUR.J, made the foiiowinq; "_?t~

ORDER

Heard the learned;”meo&flS€l;’ifo;n”ntne

compiainant. We have gone through the.contentS_

of IA}/08 for condoning the delay of it feet ééi

days in filing fine goméiaint for» initiating
contempt action aqeinet the oontemnor. We have
gone throuqnntne additionaieeoeunents filed along
with IA2{0§.iiihnidirectidnioinen by this Court
in the Q31? ggtitinfi in date; 6.3.2886 directing
the fac¢§sé§a;§§§ofiné@:_;tei take action within
three ” months @ti.e;Y*”on or before 6.6.66.

Apparentif Ithe’ oontempt petition is filed on

~.m_ 2i.7.2GO8. tine” xegistered notice which is at

‘>ivn§negu§efCg2eis dated 6.8.2007 and though in the

said nctiée a reference is made to the

communication or correspondence by the

ifincomnleinant to the respondent authority” within

Vgfié year as per Annexure C-3, we do not find any

iiicorresponding document 0: endorsement to Show

whether Annexure C-3 letter dt 3.5.06 was ever

being initiated against the contemnor, the Ccurt

is aiso required to sae whether therékfwéfi

bonafide and genuine reason for the déiaytfifiitfiéui

part of tha complainant in Wécmingt to fthe:’Cduft

seeking actian against thét acéus@dpiauthdfi:§;_

Having gone through the éfiatents pf finnéiareé C-2″.

and C-3 we are_ of _tfiei*QpiniGn_Htfiat the

complainant theught’§fttatihgA§éti§§ or seeking
relief 0f hi%#;ig§tWtfiiytfitt§;’%’tears 1 mcnth
from the d$t@ oi @fi;¢fi ¢ggge Cf acticn arose to
him. y”Thé téifi inéctibn am his part cbes net
perstade ufi tdiéifi§ gay teiief muchless the one
sought in IA:/D$ti.ii is

‘iJuAccordingiy’ :IA1/G8 is rejected and

iicgfisefiientiy the preceedings are droppad.

A

Sal’-

‘Judge

Sd/-1
Iuclqe

Sak/201088