1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

PRESENT

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

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

CCC NO.470/2020 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN

SMT. SHYAMALA SHETTY

D/O LATE K N SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

R/AT NO.102, WEIGHT LIFTING COACH

N.I.S. SOUTH CENTRE

SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

MYSORE ROAD

BENGALURU-560 056 …COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI SOMASHEKARA K M, ADVOCATE)

AND

H R MAHADEV

THE COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA)

KUMAR PARK WEST EXTENSION

T CHOWDAIAH ROAD

BENGALURU-560 020 …ACCUSED

(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)

2

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TAKE

COGNIZANCE OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST THE ACCUSED

FOR DISOBEDIENCE AND NOT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER

OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.49852/2019 (BDA) DATED

07.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED

SUITABLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND

ETC.

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF

JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

There are two separate affidavits filed by the accused who

is the present Commissioner of the Bengaluru Development

Authority (BDA). The second affidavit deals with the steps taken

by the accused for creating a machinery to ensure that the orders

of this Court are promptly complied with. A copy of the Resolution

dated 18^th December 2020 has been annexed to the said affidavit.

An outer limit has been fixed for making compliances which is

specified in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit. It is pointed out that

two more Law Officers and five advocates as Nodal Officers are

3

being employed for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the

orders of this Court.

2.

While dealing with the contempt petitions, it is noticed

that serious allegations of breach are made against BDA in

several cases. We have noticed that BDA is very slow in

complying with the orders of this Court by which, either alternate

sites are directed to be allotted to the allottees or sale deeds are

ordered to be executed. The citizens are made to run from pillar to

post and even after the orders of this Court passed against BDA

have attained finality, the litigants are forced to file contempt

petitions. In the contempt petitions, we have noticed that in many

cases, the orders are not complied with even after service of a

contempt notice.

3.

BDA is a statutory authority created under the

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. It is an agency and

instrumentality of the State. Therefore, it is expected that the

Officers of BDA should be sensitive about the rights of the citizens

and more so, when the rights of the citizens are crystalised in the

form of orders of the Constitutional Court.

4

4.

In large number of cases, successful petitioners are

driven to file contempt petitions which lead to serious

consequences. Firstly, the petitioners are put to expense by

engaging an advocate and more importantly, they carry an

impression that the agencies and instrumentalities of the State

Government such as, BDA have no respect for the orders of the

Court. The other important issue is even BDA and its Officers are

required to engage the services of advocates putting a burden on

the exchequer. Very valuable time of the Officers of BDA also is

wasted in attending the Contempt Court. All this is avoidable. The

affidavit filed by the Commissioner at least shows an intent to take

positive steps. It is necessary for BDA to ensure that the records

are perused to find out how many orders of this Court have not yet

been complied with by BDA and thereafter, a systematic effort will

have to be made to comply with t