K N Venugopal vs Smt Srilakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2124 Kant

                             -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                       PRESENT

   THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                             AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

              C.C.C NO.185 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:
1. K.N.VENUGOPAL
   S/O K. RAMASWAMY MUDILIYAR
   AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
   OCC: AGRICULTURE

2. SRI BYRAPPA
   S/O DODDABACHAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

   BOTH ARE R/O YELLKUNTE VILLAGE
   BEGUR HOBLI
   BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
                                    ... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. SMT. SRILAKSHMI
   THE TAHSILDAR
   BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
   KANDAYA BHAVAN
   K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 9

2. SMT. BHAGYA R
   THE TAHSILDAR
   BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
   KANDAYA BHAVAN
   BANGALORE - 9
                                             ... ACCUSED
(BY SHRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA)
                                -2-


      THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED AND PUNISH HER FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY
VIOLATED THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P. No.8612/2020 DATED 17 JULY
2020.

     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A No.1 of

2021 for impleadment of the second accused is allowed.

Necessary amendment shall be carried out within six weeks

from today.

2. The breach alleged is of the judgment and order dated

17th July 2020. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment and order

reads thus:

"2.Learned AGA Sri. R.Srinivasa Gowda having initially opposed the Writ Petition, now fairly submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed by this court, petitioners' subject application will be considered, in accordance with law, subject to they producing any documents as may be required by the Tahasildar.

In the above circumstance, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent - Tahasildar to consider petitioners' subject application within a period of five weeks in terms of the order of the Asst. Commissioner and in accordance with law.

It is open to the respondent - Tahasildar to solicit any information or documents as are required for due consideration of petitioners' application; the respondent - Tahasildar shall pay Rs.1,000/- personally, to each of the petitioners for the delay of each week, till after consideration of their application is accomplished and also the result of such consideration is informed to them."

(underlines supplied)

3. Thus, the order of which breach is committed was

passed on the basis of an express concession made by the

learned Additional Government Advocate representing the

State of Karnataka. In fact, paragraph 2 of the judgment and

order notes that though initially the petition was opposed, later

on, there was a concession made by the learned Additional

Government Advocate. The order ought to have been

complied with within five weeks from 17th July 2020. The order

was communicated by the complainants by their letter dated

24th July 2020. There was not even a reply sent by the

accused to the letter dated 24th July 2020.

4. The present contempt petition was filed on 19th February

2021. On 25th February 2021, notice of the contempt petition

was issued. On 31st March 2021, time was granted to the

learned Additional Government Advocate to report compliance.

Only thereafter on 15th April 2021, an endorsement was issued

by the accused. The order passed on 19th April 2021 reads

thus:

"The endorsement dated 15th April 2021 is placed on record. However, the accused has not explained the delay in complying with the order of which breach is alleged. She has not complied with the second part of the order of payment of Rs.1,000/- personally to each of the complainants for the delay of each week.

To enable the accused to file an affidavit explaining the delay and to report compliance with rest of the directions, list the petition on 4th June 2021."

(underlines supplied)

5. Not only that an affidavit explaining the delay has not

been filed, but it appears from the statement made by the

learned Additional Government Advocate today that after the

aforesaid order was passed, the accused/State Government

moved an appeal against the order of which breach is

committed. He states that only that part of the judgment and

order dated 17th July 2020, under which costs of Rs.1,000/- per

week was made payable to each of the petitioners has been

stayed.

6. On 19th April 2021, this Court showed leniency to the

accused and permitted her to file an affidavit for explaining the

delay. In fact, on 31st March 2021, time was granted on a

specific request made by the learned Additional Government

Advocate to report compliance. If there was any genuine

intention on the part of the accused to comply with the order of

this Court, firstly so much time would not have been taken by

the accused to make compliance and secondly, while

producing the endorsement dated 15th April 2021, she would

have filed the affidavit explaining the delay and tendering

apology. Though the contempt notice was issued way back on

25th February 2021, even as of today, no remorse is shown by

the accused. On 19th April 2021 time was granted to file an

affidavit for explaining delay. Till today, the accused has not

filed the affidavit explaining the delay.

7. From the order of which breach is alleged, it appears that

in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed on

27th December 2019, the application filed way back on 23rd

September 2015 was not decided by the accused. Therefore,

in the year 2020, the complainants were forced to approach the

Writ Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.

8. In view of belated compliance, though no action cannot

be taken against the accused for committing willful breach of

the order dated 17th July 2020, the State Government will have

to be saddled with costs. Considering the conduct of the

accused and inordinate delay, the costs amount is quantified at

Rs.30,000/-. We are aware that the State Government is not a

party to the contempt petition. However, the accused was

impleaded in the contempt petition in her official capacity as the

officer of the State Government and that she was represented

by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the writ

petition. We are directing the State Government to pay the

costs to the complainants with liberty to the State Government

to recover the same from the officers who are responsible for

the gross delay. Needless to add that if the State Government

does not pay the costs amount, the accused will have to pay

the same to the complainants.

9. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

(i) Notice of contempt petition issued on 25th February

2021 is discharged and the contempt petition is

disposed of;

(ii) We direct the State Government to pay costs

quantified at Rs.30,000/- to the complainants on or

before 12th July 2021. It will be open for the State

Government to recover the amount of costs from the

officers who are responsible for the gross delay in

making compliance with the order of this Court dated

17th July 2020. If the State Government fails to pay

the costs within the stipulated time, it will be the

obligation of the accused to pay the costs amount to

the complainants on or before 20th July 2021;

(iii) It will be always open for the complainants to

challenge the endorsement dated 15th April 2021 in

accordance with law;

(iv) Though the contempt petition is disposed of, it will be

placed on Board under the caption of Orders for

reporting compliance with the payment of costs. The

petition shall be listed on 23rd July 2021.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB