Contempt Petition No. 1082 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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.1082 OF 2022 BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
BANK OFFICERS' CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GF-006, 'ACHARYA SANKEERNA' AICOBOO NAGAR, 9TH MAIN, II CROSS BTM LAY-OUT, II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI P. KISHORE KUMAR. …COMPLAINANT Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI TUSHAR GIRI NATH, I.A.S., CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. SRI KUMAR NAIK, I.A.S., COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI SRINIVAS B. S., ADVOCATE FOR, SRI B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR A-1, SRI AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR A-2, SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR A-3) …ACCUSED THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN NOT IMPLEMENTING, WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE FINAL ORDER DATED 26.11.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.12663/2018 (UNDER ANNEXURE-A). THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, 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 proceeding has been initiated by the complainant against respondents/accused relating to the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in WP.No.12663/2018 (BDA) vide Annexure-A. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 2. Sri. Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Sri. Srinivas B. S., learned counsel appearing for Sri. B. L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent/accused No.1, Sri. Ajay Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for respondent/accused No.2 and Sri. Harish A. S., learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent/accused No.3 are present before the Court physically. 3. Paragraph No.5 of the aforesaid order indicates as under: "In view of the statement of the respondent- BDA that the area in question which is shown as Civic Amenity Site in the impugned notification is not allotted to any person or institution and further statement that the said area is a park in the approved layout plan, respondents shall maintain it as a park." 4. In this contempt proceeding, respondent/accused is required to comply the aforesaid direction. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant seeks for permission to file his response to the affidavit filed by respondents/ accused. 6. Respondent/accused No.2 - Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority has filed an affidavit dated 04.03.2025. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 7. Paragraph No.9 of the said affidavit indicates that the lands in Sy.No.13/14 of Tavarekere village is the subject matter in the above writ petitions as well and the prayers in WP.No.4068/2016 and WP.No.48365/2018 are about maintaining the lands as park. In WP.No.2659/2017 and WP.No.24729/2017 the acquisition by the BDA is under challenge. All the above writ petitions are pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court. This is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the said submission is taken on record. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 emphatically submits to consider the affidavit dated 17.02.2025 filed by respondent/accused No.1 - Sri. Tushar Giri Nath, Chief Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). 9. Paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit indicates that the BDA, in their affidavit dated 06.12.2024, has stated before this Hon'ble Court that they have handed over Survey Nos.14/13 and 14/1 to the BBMP through their letter dated 03.12.2012. However, the BDA has transferred only an extent of 0.27 guntas, while the total area of the land reserved measures 2 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 acres and 31 guntas. Copy of the letter dated 03.12.2012 is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10. Paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit indicates as under: "I further submit that unless and until the BDA hands over the entire land, BBMP will be unable to develop the park on the said land. I further submit that since BDA has handed over only an extent of 0.27 guntas, the BBMP has already constructed a sports complex for public use on the said land. Copy of the plan is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. xxxxx " 11. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents/accused and affidavit filed by respondents/accused, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. M.LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein, in paragraph No.52 of the said judgment, it is revealed as under: "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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also 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." 12. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and provision of Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the ingredients are very much required to consider. But, the four wit petitions are pending and therefore, no action can be taken against respondents/accused. 13. Consequently, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10203-DB CCC No. 1082 of 2022 14. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances and also four writ proceedings are pending, it is deemed appropriate that the liberty is granted as in accordance with law. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5