Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narayanaswamy vs Sri Rajkumar Kathri on 13 June, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CCC No.950/2016 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSPETE,
SHIDLGATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -562 102.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAJKUMAR KATHRI
THE COMMISSIONER
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXT.
BENGALURU-560 020.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI VIKRAM HULIGOL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE
2
ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED IN
W.P.NO.46609/2013 DATED 09.10.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT
PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The basis of the present case under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and non-compliance of the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by this Court in the respective writ petition whereby the direction was given to take appropriate decision upon the representation of the petitioner and if the representation is decided in favour of the petitioner-complainant, necessary documents were also be executed.
2. We have heard Mr.Vasanth Kumar H.T., learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr.Vikram Huligol, learned counsel appearing for the accused. 3
3. On behalf of the accused, the memo is tendered along with additional affidavit whereby it is reported to the Court that the decision upon the representation is already taken long back vide order dated 02.05.2015 and copy of the same is also produced at Annexure-R-1.
4. However, learned counsel appearing for the complainant made the grievance that the decision is taken not upon the representation made by the complainant but it is in respect of other Narayanswamy who is also residing in Hospet, Shidlaghatta, Chikkaballapura District and as per him the decision upon the representation is exfacie illegal.
5. As such in the decision upon the representation produced at Annnexure-R-1 there is reference to the same writ petition and the representation dated 06.11.2013 and the notice of the advocate Sri.Chandrashekhar on behalf of Mr.Narayanswamy. Under these circumstances, when the representation is already decided by making reference of 4 the order of this Court, it cannot be said that contempt would continue. However, if the complainant is aggrieved by the decision dated 02.05.2015 may be on the ground of identity or otherwise, it would be for him to challenge the said decision dated 02.05.2015 by filing substantive petition before the appropriate forum and at that stage rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the present proceedings as such do not deserve to be continued further.
7. However, before parting with, we would like to emphasis that when the complaint is filed for contempt case, the proof of photo identity at the time of filing affidavit is not being insisted. Similarly, when the affidavits are tendered before this Court in main writ petition/s, the photograph of the person swearing is also not affixed. Whether in the present case, original petitioner was the same Narayanswamy or there is another 5 Narayanswamy in respect of whom the decision taken is not identifiable because of non affixing of the photograph as a proof of identity in earlier as well as present proceedings before this Court.
8. So far as the present matter is concerned, we have relegated the matter to the complainant to resort to appropriate proceedings by preferring substantive petition. However, considering the fact that in none of the pleadings or affidavits filed before this Court, the photograph is not affixed as proof of identity of the person who is declaring on oath, it is just and proper that the matter is considered on administrative side for amendment of the Rules or otherwise so as to get the authenticated proof for the identify of the person by affixing photograph at the time when swearing is made by the deponent. We leave it at that.
9. The Registrar General shall place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on administrative side for 6 appropriate consideration on the aspects as to whether the appropriate Rule amendment deserves to be made by the High Court for affixing of photograph at the time when the deponent is swearing on oath and such affidavit/s is/are tendered in any proceedings of this Court.
The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN