Karnataka High Court
Raghu R vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13309-DB
CCC No. 803 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
RAGHU R
S/O T.S RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VEDA VIGNANA
MAHA VIDYA PEETH,
21ST KM, UDAYAPURA POST,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 062.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKAS SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. SRI. MANJUNATH THAVANE
JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 1.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13309-DB
CCC No. 803 of 2022
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SECURE THE
ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED AS MENTIONED AT
ANNEXURE-F ORDER DATED 18.07.2022 IN WP
NO.13495/2022 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
K.SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel namely Sri.Raghu Prasad B.S., for
the complainant, who is on record, but there is no
representation on behalf of the complainant either by
video conferencing or physically to persuade this matter.
2. This contempt proceeding has been initiated by
the complainant against respondents for implementation
of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.13495/2022 (KLR-RES) dated 18.07.2022.
3. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the
learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ petition,
directing the Revisional Authority to furnish a copy of the
petition submitted by the State for the cancellation of
Durasthi and thereafter afford an opportunity to the
NC: 2024:KHC:13309-DB
petitioner to file his objections and contest the matter.
Therefore, paragraph 4 of the impugned order, which has
been rendered by the learned Single Judge, is required to
be implemented under this contempt proceeding that has
been initiated by the complainant against accused.
4. In this contempt proceeding, neither the
complainant, who is party to the proceeding, nor the
counsel are present before the Court physically and there
is no specifically mentioned time for compliance of the
impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge on
the writ side. Therefore, keeping in view the status in this
matter, it is deemed appropriate to refer the reported
decision in the case of Sri N. Rajanna vs. Dr. Rajaneesh
Goel, ,I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Department of
Youth Services and Sports, and another reported in
ILR 2017 KAR 995 wherein the scope relating to
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been
answered and even referring many judgments, it is opined
NC: 2024:KHC:13309-DB
that if no time limit is fixed for compliance of the order,
action for contempt of Court in such a case is not
maintainable in law.
5. The issue relating to Sections 11 and 12 of the
Act has been in detail stated in the aforesaid reliance,
which has been rendered by the Coordinate Benches of
this Court. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid
reported decision as well as the scope as indicated in
Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, it is deemed appropriate
that the contempt proceedings do not maintainable to
persuade this matter in accordance with law.
Consequently, the contempt proceeding is dismissed as
devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY
