IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

CCC.No.559 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA

PALIKE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

WELFARE ASSOCIATION

HAVING OFFICE AT CENTRAL OFFICE

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002

REPRESENTED BY IT’S PRESIDENT

A.AMRUTHRAJ, S/O.ANANDA RAJ

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

... COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI SRINIVASA V,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

RAKESH SINGH

SECRETARY TO

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

VIKAS SOUDHA

BENGALURU -560 001

2.

MANJUNATH PRASAD

THE COMMISIIONER

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

2

N.R.SQUARE

BENGALURU -560 002

… ACCUSED

(BY SRI V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2

SRI G.SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1)

***

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE HON’BLE

COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR SHOWING WILLFUL DIS-RESPECT

AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2020

PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NOS.51994/2019 C/W

W.P.NO.32121/2019 (S-RES) VIDE

ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioner in W.P. No.51994/2019 had initiated this

contempt proceedings alleging that there is willful breach

of the directions issued in the said writ petition by the

order dated 19.03.2020.

2.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing

for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in

the petition and affidavit filed by respondent – Contemnor,

we notice that the directions issued to the respondents to

3

consider the representation dated 20.05.2019 within a

period of two months from the date of order (19.03.2020),

in not already considered and provided copy of the order

passed on the said representation.

3.

Affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 would

indicate

that

the

representation

dated

20.05.2019

submitted by the Complainant was required to be

adjudicated by the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 in

the affidavit has enclosed copy of the affidavit dated

04.03.2021

along

with

copy

of

the

order

dated

11.02.2021,

which

is

upon

consideration

of

the

representation dated 20.05.2019.

4.

Thus, the direction issued in the aforesaid writ

petition stands complied and the delay not being

intentional and remorse having been expressed by the

Contemnor for the delay, we accept unconditional apology

tendered on the said delay. Hence, reserving the liberty to

the petitioner to challenge the order dated 11.02.2021

4

passed by the respondent No.2 – Contemnor, the present

contempt proceedings stands dropped.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

VK