Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28644 (KAR)

SMT. G GEETHA v. SRI. TUSHAR GIRI NATH

CCC/735/2022 · 2025-03-25

K Somashekar, Venkatesh Naik T

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12394-DB CCC No. 735 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH 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. 735 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT. G GEETHA W/O T R MUNIRAJU AGED 59 YEARS R/AT NO 5, 8TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, VINAYAK NAGAR B BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU 560017. REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI T R MUNIRAJU AGED 60 YEARS R/AT NO 5, 8TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, VINAYAKNAGAR B BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU 560017. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI NAGARAJ – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. TUSHAR GIRI NATH THE COMMISSIONER THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE J C ROAD KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA CIRCLE BENGALURU 560002. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12394-DB CCC No. 735 of 2022 2. SRI G SRINVIASA MURTGHY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EARLIER IN HOODI SUB DIVISION NOW WHITEFILED SUB DIVSION BRUHAT BENGALURU MANGAHANRA PALIKE WARD NO 85, MAHADEVAPURA RANGE BENGALURU 560048. 3. SRI R VENKATACHALAPATHI THE JOINT COMMISSIONER EARLIEER IN HOODI SUB DIVSION NOW WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD NO 85, MAHADEVAURA RANGE BENGALURU 560048. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S - ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971,PRAYING TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS DATED 21.04.2022 GIVEN BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.1202/2022 (LB-BBMP) AT ANNEXURE-A. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12394-DB CCC No. 735 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceeding is initiated by the complainant against the respondents/accused for disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1202/2022 (LB-BBMP) dated 21.4.2022 as per Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel Sri Nagaraj appearing on behalf of Sri C.Shankar Reddy for the complainant and learned counsel Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K.S. for A1 to A3 are present before the Court physically. 3. Counsel for the accused submits that one more writ petition in W.P.No.6851/2024 in respect of the issues in between the parties to the proceedings is pending consideration. 4. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in paragraph 52 it is observed as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12394-DB CCC No. 735 of 2022 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 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid reliance and so also, Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 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