Contempt Petition No. 637 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMADAS GOWDA S S/O LATE S B GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OCC COMMANDANT (R) R/AT SANKTANTHI APMC ROAD, PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA-570011. 2. Y Y BAGALI S/O YAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC ASST ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RETD) POLICE SUB-INSPECTORATE OFFICE R/AT NO.843, 14TH MAIN ROAD POLICE LAYOUT, 2ND HASE SARDAR VALLABHABAI PATEL NAGAR MYSURU-570028. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. GNANESHA N I - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAJESH KUMAR M B, IAS COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560020. …ACCUSED - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. …PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G S KANNUR – SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. POONAM S PATIL – ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.1; SRI. HARISHA A S – AGA FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENT) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AND PUNISH HIM FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED AND VIOLATED THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN NO.31175/2018 (BDA). THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt petition is filed by the complainants against respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.31175/2018 (BDA) dated 17.11.2021.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel Sri Gnanesha N.I. for the complainants and learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur for Accused No.1 – BDA and so also, learned AGA for Accused No.2 – State. Complainant No.2 namely Sri Y.Y.Bagali is present before the Court physically. 3. Learned Counsel for the complainants submits that complainants were working in the Special Task Force formed by the State Government to capture Veerappan, a forest brigand. The Government had introduced and conferred certain benefits to the persons who had worked in the Task Force and one such benefit was to allot sites to those persons who working the Special Task Force. It is stated that the complainants had made applications to BDA requesting allotment of site as beneficiaries for having worked in the Special Task Force. The BDA under allotment letters dated 01.08.2017 and 08.08.2017 allotted sites to the complainants at the rate of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 Rs.24,219/- per sq.mtr and Rs.21,258/- per sq.mtr respectively. The first complainant was allotted a site measuring 60 x 40 feet and second complainant was allotted 30 x 40 feet. Counsel for the complainants submits that the price determined by the BDA is on higher side and contrary to the Government Order dated 18.12.2010 and the order of this Court in W.P.No.18063- 18077/2010 dated 19.11.2010. He submitted that the request identically situated police officers who were part of the Special Task Force held that the Special Task Force personnel would be entitled for allotment of sites at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per sq.mtr. In this regard a writ petition was preferred by the complainants before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.31175/2018 wherein the BDA was directed to consider the representations of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.Nos.18063-18077/2010 and in the Government Order dated 18.12.2010 within a period of three months. Since the respondents/accused did not comply the order of learned single Judge, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 complainants have initiated the present contempt proceedings. 4. Counsel for the complainants in support of his arguments has placed the following reliances of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) (ii) (2006) 1 SCC 613 Union of India and others v. Subedar Devassy (2002) 5 SCC 352 Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another vs. Taraknath Ganguly and others (iii) (2005) 6 SCC 98 Director of Education, Uttaranchal and others vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and others 5. In the aforesaid reliances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the issues relating to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inclusive of Articles 215 and 129 of the Constitution of India. In (2006) 1 SCC 613, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in contempt proceedings court is concerned only with question whether the earlier decision has been complied with or not – it cannot examine the correctness of the earlier decision, or - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 traverse beyond it and take a different view from what was taken therein, or give additional directions or delete any direction. Counsel for the complainants submits that the above decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand. On all these grounds, he seeks for allowing the contempt proceeding. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur for Accused No.1 – BDA vehemently addressed his arguments relating to the contempt proceedings initiated by the complainants. He submits that in compliance of the order passed in W.P.No.31175/2018 dated 17.11.2021 compliance affidavit has been filed on 03.03.2025 wherein it is stated that in compliance of the order passed in the writ petition the representation of the complainants were considered by thoroughly examining all the records with reference to the directions given by the learned single Judge and a detailed order was passed on 25.01.2023 in total compliance with all the directions in the said orders. The order passed by the Commissioner, BDA is produced - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 herewith as Annexure-R4. It is stated that in the present case complainant No.1 has been allotted 12 x 18 sq.mtr site bearing No.B9-SC-2250 in Sy.No.94, Kenchanapura Village in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the allotment price of Rs.24,219 per sq.mtr which works out to be Rs.52,31,255/-. The complainant No.2 has been allotted site bearing No.B9-SD-1693 measuring 9 x 12 sq.mtr at Sy.No.86/1, Kenchanapura village in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout at the allotment price of Rs.21,258/- per sq.mtr which works out be Rs.23,25,002/- Accordingly, the BDA has followed all the guidelines and orders in respect of allotment. Complainant No.2 has not only availed he incentive of Rs.2,100/- per sq.mtr amount to Rs.2,34,108, but was also given cash reward of Rs.3,00,000/- on 22.07.2006. A copy of the communication dated 26.04.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mysore is produced herewith as Annexure-R8. In that view complainant No.2 is not entitled for allotment of any site from the BDA. The compliance affidavit is produced along with Annexures R1 to R8. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 same is taken on record. Learned Senior Counsel emphatically submits for consideration of the compliance affidavit and seeks to drop the contempt proceedings against the accused since there is no disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. 7. Learned AGA for respondent / accused No.2 emphatically submits that there is no disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition and accordingly, seeks for dropping of the contempt proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the complainants further submits that objections has been filed to the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents / accused. It is stated
Decision
that there is clear direction in the writ petition to consider the claim of the complainants with regard to the cost of the site at Rs.2,100/- per sq.mtr. However, accused No.1 has rejected the request of complainants vide order dated 25.01.2023 and the same is contrary to the order passed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 in the writ petition and amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 17.11.2021 passed in the writ petition. Further, it is stated at para 4 of the compliance affidavit that accused No.1 has falsely stated the complainant No.2 has not worked in the special task force. But it is pertinent to note that in W.P.No.31175/2018 all documents like appreciation letter and correspondence with BDA were produced, but however, accused No.1 did not raise any objections on the same in the writ proceedings. After making allotment of site in the year 2017 in favour of complainant No.2, now a false contention has been taken. It is submitted that on 24.11.2023, the Director General and the Inspector General of Police had sent a letter to the Addl.Chief Secretary stating that complainant No.2 had worked as Superintendent in the special task force. The said communications are produced as Annexures-A1 to A3. 9. Having regard to the submissions made emphatically by the learned counsel for the complainants, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 learned Senior Counsel for Accused No.1 and learned AGA for Accused No.2 and having gone through the material documents available on record, it is relevant to refer Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as under: 2(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; or found 11. Power of High Court to try offences committed outside offenders jurisdiction.— A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed its the within or outside jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. limits of local 12. Punishment for contempt of court.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal and others vs. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 Ved Prakash Joshi and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 98 has held that all that the contempt court is concerned with is whether the decision in question has been complied with or not, it cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order, traverse beyond it or given additional directions or delete any direction contained therein, right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed, it is for the party concerned to have approached a higher court if it wished to challenge the. Reference has been made to Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in paragraphs 44, 50, 52 and 53 observed as under: 44. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” 50. It will be appropriate here to also quote from Halsbury’s Laws of England, which states: “Thus a party in contempt may apply to purge the contempt, he may apply with a view to setting aside the order in which his contempt is founded, and in some cases he may be entitled to defend himself when some application is subsequently made against him. Even the plaintiff in contempt has been allowed to prosecute his action, when the defendant had not applied to stay the proceedings. Probably the true rule is that the party in contempt will not be heard only on those occasions when his contempt impedes the course of justice and there is no other effective way of enforcing his obedience.” 52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice. 53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10421-DB CCC No. 637 of 2022 12. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and so also, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid reliances and the compliance affidavit filed by Accused No.1 – BDA and also keeping in view the Sections 2(b), 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act inclusive of Article 215 of Constitution of India, this contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB