Karnataka High Court
Abshot Layout Resident"S Association vs Shri M.B. Tippanna on 6 July, 2017
Bench: Jayant Patel, S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA
CCC NO.271/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
ABSHOT LAYOUT RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION
PRESENTLY AT NO.26/11,
ABSHOT LAYOUT, SANKEY ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI.G.BALAJI RAO
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI M.B. TIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
JOINT /ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
(TOWN PLANNING)
2
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560002.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI K N PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, BY THE
COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO SUMMON THE
ACCUSED AND PUNISH HIM FOR THE CONTEMPT OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT FOR THE WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 21/07/2016
(ANNEXURE-A)PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.15951/2015.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, is the alleged breach and non- compliance to the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by this Court, whereby the direction was given to the respondent No.3 to pass a reasoned order within the prescribed time limit.
2. We have heard Mr.Ashok B.Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr.D.N..Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.K.N.Puttegowda, for the accused.
3. This matter was heard on the earlier date. At the relevant point of time, the attempt was made on the part of the accused to contend that the order was already passed on 20.08.2016 on the date when the hearing before him was concluded. But upon further consideration of record and the language used in the 4 order, it was prima facie observed that the order appears to have been backdated because even in the original file, there is no endorsement made on 20.08.2016 for passing of such an order and this Court had also prima facie found that such may not only result for facing the consequences of breach of the order, but it may also result into making false statement before the Court inviting further action. At that stage, learned Counsel appearing for the accused had taken time to discuss the matter with his client.
4. Today when the matter is taken up, an affidavit is tendered by the accused Ex. Additional Director of Town Planning, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, stating interalia at paragraph-3, the relevant of which reads as under:
"However, the order was not pronounced on 20.08.2016."5
It has been further stated as under:
"I submit that, at the time of signing the order, I have put the date as though the order was pronounced on 20.08.2016. I submit that, this was done, fearing that this Hon'ble Court may take a serious view of the matter, since I was required to pass the orders within a period of two months from the date of the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge.
It has been further stated in the affidavit at paragraph-5 which reads as under:
"I submit that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly take a lenient view of the bona fide mistake and drop the Contempt proceedings against me."
5. As such, if the statement made in the affidavit is considered as it is backdating of the order hence an incorrect statement made before the Court is apparent. Therefore, we are not inclined to treat the mistake as 6 bona fide. Further, as there was not a whisper for unconditional apology in the affidavit, even otherwise also, the Court would not take lenient view in a matter where the contemnor or the accused does not tender any unconditional apology. We prima facie found that it is a case where strict action deserves to be taken against the accused not only for the so-called breach but also for playing oversmart with the Court proceedings by backdating the order.
6. We would have further considered the matter. However, Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, under the instruction of the accused, who is stated to be personally present before the Court declared that the accused has retired from service and is ready to pay any amount of cost which this Court may find it appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but further order for 7 considering the matter for imposing punishment may not be passed. He also submitted that the declaration to that effect shall be given by the accused during the course of the day and this Court may consider the matter accordingly. We direct the accused to tender the said declaration during the course of the day.
7. In view of the above, we find that it would be appropriate to impose the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) upon the accused, which shall be deposited with this Court within a period of 15 days from today. We may also record that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused under the instruction of his client has declared that the accused is agreeable for payment of the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as observed by this Court.
8. Under the circumstances, the unconditional apology is accepted on condition that the accused 8 deposits the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with this Court within two weeks from today.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to order that out of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) which may be deposited by the accused, the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as a cost of the present litigation, and out of the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) shall be forwarded by the office to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the utilization of the amount for the betterment of the poor litigants and the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) shall be forwarded by office to The Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent 9 Fund, at the office of the Advocates' Association, Bangalore, which is for welfare of Advocates.
10. No further order deserves to be passed. Hence, case is disposed of accordingly. Liberty to apply in the event any direction given is not complied with by the accused.
11. Original file shall be returned to the Corporation as the proceedings are disposed of.
12. The intimation given to the Passport Authority/Airport Authority shall be withdrawn/communicated by the Office only after payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) by the accused and after receipt of the same by the office. 10
In view of the above, I.A.No.2/2017 does not survive for consideration and hence disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-