Karnataka High Court
Shri. M.L. Ashok Kumar vs Mr. Prasad S on 9 March, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
CCC No. 227 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
CCC NO. 227 OF 2022 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI M.L.ASHOK KUMAR
S/O SHRI LAKSHMI NARAYN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
SHOP NO.4, PRABHAT TALKIES ROAD
OPPOSITE TO CENTRAL LODGE
KOLAR - 573 101
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI; M.D RAGHUNATH AND SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR
LEGAL AXIS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MR. PRASAD S
THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
by AMBIKA H B
KOLAR - 563 101
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. VENKAT RAJA
THE DY COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KOLAR - 563 101
...ACCUSED
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDERS OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.20695/2021 DATED 01.02.2022,
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CCC No. 227 of 2022
ORDER
Heard.
2. Initially, Sri Skanda Kumar, learned counsel and
subsequently, Sri M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel addressed this
Court on behalf of the complainant.
3. This contempt petition is filed with a grievance that there is
willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.20695/2021.
4. We have perused the documents placed on record. In the
order dated 01.02.2022, vide Annexure-A, the learned Single
Judge refers to a decision of a Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition
No.204396/2016 c/w W.P No.204395/2018 (MEHABOOB PATEL v/s
THE CHIEF OFFICER), which were disposed of on 04.08.2020. The
learned Single Judge has also referred to an order passed by a
Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.932-933/1974 (A.V.VINODA &
ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER &
SECRETARY) wherein it was observed that the Court should treat
the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, it has to be
CCC No. 227 of 2022
extended to a similarly circumstanced litigants, as well, there being
no derogatory circumstances. Thus, by referring to these two
judgments, the writ petition filed by the complainant/petitioner was
disposed of, granting the same relief to the petitioners therein as
has been granted to the petitioner in the cognate cases. A copy of
the order of the learned Single Judge in the case of MEHABOOB
PATEL (supra) is placed on record at Annexure-E. A copy of the
order passed by the Division Bench in the case of SRI A.V.VINODA
(supra) is also placed on record at Annexure-F.
5. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition which was
observed by the Division Bench in the matter of SRI A.V.VINODA.
As the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner/
complainant was similarly circumstanced with MEHABOOB PATEL,
it would be necessary for us to refer to the observations recorded in
that order. In MEHABOOB PATEL's case, a reference was made to
the circular dated 19.07.2019 issued by the Government of
Karnataka exercising the powers under Section 72 (1) of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Municipalities Rules
and the observations made therein read thus:
"It states that wherever municipalities are not able to
recover possession of the premises even after the
CCC No. 227 of 2022
expiry of lease, then such premises may be put to
auction without disturbing the possession of the
lessee and that the lessee should be given the first
right of refusal if he is willing to deposit 5% more than
the highest bid received at the auction."
(emphasis supplied by us)
The learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 has observed thus:
"Since the government has issued a circular
specifying the manner of disposal of the properties
of mu nicipalities, it would be appropriate if the
benefit of the circular is extended to the petitioner.
The petitioner is, thus, entitled to retain possession
of the premises in question subject to:
a) The respondent shall hold the auction of the
premises in issue within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
b) The auction shall be widely published in both
Kannada and English dailies circulated in Talikoti
Taluk as well as Vijayapura district.
c) The auction shall be held strictly in accordance with
the circular dated 19.07.2019 issued by the
Government of Karnataka.
d) All facilities should be permitted for submission of
bids.
e) The petitioner shall not intimidate or threaten any
bidder at the auction. If need be the respondent
shall secure the presence of the local police.
f) The petitioner shall intimate the respondent one
week prior to the auction date and reserve his right
CCC No. 227 of 2022
of first refusal and also agree to pay 5% above the
highest bid received. If he does not reserve his right
of first refusal, then he may participate in the
auction like any other bidder.
g) Upon finalisation of the bid, if the petitioner has
reserved right of first refusal then he may deposit
25% of the amount on the same day and the
balance as per circular dated 19.07.2019. If
petitioner does not reserve his right of first refusal,
then the successful bidder (including the petitioner)
may deposit 25% of the bid amount on the same
day and the balance as per circular dated
19.07.2019.
h) If the auction cannot be finalised for want of bidders
or for not receiving the base price, then the
respondent is at liberty to keep the auction process
alive till the process is duty completed.
i) If any arrears of rent is payable by the petitioner to
the respondent in respect of the premises in issue,
the same shall be paid prior to the date fixed for
auction and if such payment is not made, the
petitioner shall not be entitled to participate in the
auction.
j) If the petitioner does not opt his right of first refusal
and or if the petitioner does not succeed in the
auction then the petitioner shall quietly deliver
vacant possession of the premises in question to
the respondent."
(emphasis supplied by us)
6. It is important to take note of the pre-requisite according to
which the respondent had to hold an auction of the premises and
then, the petitioner had to intimate respondent No.1 prior to the
CCC No. 227 of 2022
auction and reserve his right of first refusal and also agree to pay
5% above the highest bid. If such right of refusal is not intimated
and the right of refusal is not reserved, then the petitioner is
permitted to participate in the auction like any other bidder. Now, in
spite of asking the learned counsel repeatedly as to whether the
Authorities were apprised of the order of this Court particularly, the
conditions being the pre-requisites and secondly, whether there is
any disclosure of sequence of events, the reply of the learned
counsel was that the respondent was a party before the learned
Single Judge. It was also the submission before this Court that the
representations were submitted by the petitioner/complainant and
reliance was placed on the communications dated 03.02.2022 and
05.02.2022 placed on record. The copies of the representation is
placed on record at Annexure-B and the communications dated
03.02.2022 and 05.02.2022 are placed on record at Annexures-C
and D, respectively. On repeated perusal of the contents of the
contempt petition and the aforementioned annexures, we are
unable to see any apprise to the Authority about the conditions
precedent or the requisite condition.
CCC No. 227 of 2022
7. We are also unable to find a specific stand taken by the
complainant as to whether the respondent Authority, as per clause
(a) of the order dated 04.08.2020 in the matter of MEHABOOB
PATEL, held the auction of the premises and such auction was
published in newspapers. We are unable to find any material to
disclose that after such public intimation of the auction, the
petitioner/complainant approached the Authority concerned and
made an attempt to reserve his right by agreeing to pay 5% above
the highest bid received. When there is no material to show that
the auction itself was held, the petitioner/complainant putting his
right to refusal or getting reserved his right to refusal by agreeing to
pay 5% above the highest bid itself is not established and the only
contention which is reiterated is that the petitioner/complainant
informed the Authorities that he had reserved his right to refusal
and he will make the payment required and sought for retention of
the premises. Secondly, though it is vehemently submitted before
this Court that the complainant is dispossessed by committing non-
compliance of the order of this Court, there is nothing on record to
show that such dispossession is by way of any written
communication. There is also nothing on record to show that by
way of oral communication, the complainant was informed about
CCC No. 227 of 2022
dispossession. If such oral communication was there, the details of
such oral communication are completely missing in the complaint.
8. In our opinion, the present contempt petition is wholly an
outcome of misconception and misreading of the order of the
Court. Secondly, the contempt petition falls too short on the aspect
of placing necessary material before this Court. These facts
prompt us to say that the contempt petition is only an outcome of
assumptions, presumptions, misleading and wild guess. As such,
the contempt petition thoroughly being devoid of any merit, is liable
to be dismissed at the threshold and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
