- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:790-DB CCC No. 1229 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CCC NO. 1229 OF 2024 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHARIFF UNNISA W/O LATE NISAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO. 195, 16TH CROSS 6TH 'A' MAIN, SARAKKI 4TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N. JAYARAM THE COMMISSIONER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST BENGALURU - 560 020. …ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.11934/2019 DATED 16.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:790-DB CCC No. 1229 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) The directions which are brought under this contempt petition or their alleged non-compliance reads as under, "In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to apply under Section 38D of 1976 Act, within three months and the BDA to consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the humanitarian aspect enacted in the said provision coupled with earlier offer to provide alternate site. In that connection. All contentions are kept open. It hardly needs to be stated that till application in contemplation is decided after notice to Petitioner and result of consideration thereof is communicated to her, no coercive action shall be imitated for eviction/removal." 2. Learned advocate for the complainant stated that in pursuant to the said directions, the complainant has already applied under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,1976 before the competent authority. 3. The grievance is that the competent authority has not decided the application and no decision is communicated. In this regard, it is to be observed that the directions of learned Single - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:790-DB CCC No. 1229 of 2024 Judge quoted herein above do not contemplate any time limit for decision to be taken by the competent authority 4. In that view, at this stage it is not possible to conclude that any of the respondents have committed contempt of court, much less a willful contempt. Therefore, the contempt petition is not maintainable, however at the same time, the directions of the Court should not go uncomplied with. It is therefore provided that the competent authority - respondent shall take a decision upon the application of the complainant already made as stated by learned advocate for the complainant and render a decision to communicate the same to the complainant within eights weeks from today, failing which the authority concerned shall be exposed to the contempt jurisdiction. 5. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2