Karnataka High Court
Ashok Iron Works Ltd., vs Neeraj Jain, on 21 June, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
C.C.C.Nos.3302 & 3309 of 2013 (CIVIL)
C/w
WA Nos.30287 & 30783 of 2013 (GM - RES)
C.C.C.Nos.3302 & 3309 of 2013:
BETWEEN
Ashok Iron Works Ltd.,
Udyambagh, Belgaum
Represented by its
Managing Director
Shri Ashok Shivalingappa
Humbarwadi, Belgaum. ... Complainant
(By Sri V M Sheelvant, Advocate.)
AND
1. Neeraj Jain
The Chief Executive Officer
Cantonment Board, Belgaum
Belgaum - 590 001.
2. Santosh Kurup S M
President Cantonment
Board & Brigadier MLIRC
Contonment Board, Belgaum. ... Accused
(By Sri Sachin P Bichu, Advocate.)
2
These CCCs are filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, praying to initiate contempt
proceedings and punish them for having committed contempt
of the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.Nos.60620-60621/2012 (GM-RES) produced at
Annexure-C.
WA Nos.30287 & 30783 of 2013:
Between:
The Chief Executive Officer
Cantonment Board, Belgaum. .. Appellant
(By Sri Sachin P Bichu, Adv.)
And:
1. Ashok Iron Works Ltd,
Udyambag, Belgaum
Represented by its
Managing Director
Sri Ashok Shivalingappa
Humbarawadi Aged 73 years,
R/a.Belgaum.
2. The President and Brigadier
MLIRC (Ex-Officio President)
Cantonment Board, Belgaum.
3. The Defence Estate Officer
Karnataka and Goa Circle
K Kamaraj Road, Bangalore.
3
4. The Principal Director
Defence Estates
Ministry of Defence
Southern Command
Pune.
5. The Director General
Defence Estates (Lands)
Ministry of Defence
Raksha Sampada Bhawan
Ulaanbatar Road
Delhi Cantonment.
6. The General Officer
Commanding in Chief
Southern Command
Pune.
7. Government of India
Represented by its Secretary
Defence Department
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Sri V M Sheelvant Adv. for R1,
Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, CGSC for R2 to R7)
These WAs are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 9.1.2013
in WP Nos.60620-21/2012 passed by the learned Single
Judge.
These CCCs and WAs coming on for orders this day, N K
PATIL J, made the following:
4
ORDER
The contempt petitions are filed praying to initiate contempt proceedings and punish the accused for having committed contempt of the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.60620-60621/2012 (GM-RES) produced at Annexure-C.
2. The writ appeals are filed by the 1st accused questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9.1.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.60620-60621/2012 by the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case in hand are that earlier the complainant had filed W.P.Nos.60620-621/2012 questioning the resolution dated 17.8.2011 produced at Annexure-T and the order dated 17.11.2011 produced at Annexure-V in the writ petition. The said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The said writ petitions have been considered quashing Annexures-T and V and directing the accused Nos.1 and 2 and another to issue permission to the complainant. However, such permission does not 5 preclude the accused from taking possession of the property if there is need in terms of the undertaking stated to have been given by the complainant in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge as referred above, the complainant has filed contempt petitions, whereas the 1st accused has filed the instant writ appeals being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned counsel appearing for the accused for considerable length of time and perused the order impugned.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, what emerges is that the resolution and the order passed by the 2nd and 6th respondents respectively in the writ petitions have been quashed and direction has been issued to the Chief Executive Officer, the President and Brigadier MLIRC (Ex-Officio President), Cantonment Board, Belgaum and the Defence Estates Officer, Karnataka & Goa Circle, K Kamraj Road, Bangalore to issue permission to the complainant. However, 6 it was observed that such permission does not preclude them from taking possession of the property in accordance with law if there is need in terms of the undertaking stated to have been given by the complainant.
6. During the course of the submission, learned counsel appearing for the accused, Sri Sachin P Bichu submitted that in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court in the writ petitions as referred above, the complainant has not given any undertaking. However, in the event, undertaking is given by the complainant, his case will be considered in pursuance of the order passed by this Court as expeditiously as possible.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Sri V M Sheelvant, at the outset fairly submitted that placing the submission of the learned counsel for the accused on record, the contempt petitions may be disposed of.
8. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the 7 contempt petitions as well as the writ appeals stand disposed of with the following directions:
a) The complainant/1st respondent in the writ appeal is hereby directed to file his undertaking before the appellant/1st accused within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
b) The 1st accused is directed to pass an appropriate order in pursuance of the order dated 9.1.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.60620-621/2012 by the learned Single Judge and dispose of the application filed by the complainant within a period of four weeks in accordance with law.
Sri V M Sheelvant, learned counsel is directed to file vakalath on behalf of the 1st respondent in the writ appeals within four weeks.
Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned CGSC for R2 to R7 is directed to file memo of appearance within four weeks in the writ appeals.
8
In view of disposal of writ appeals, I.A.I/2013 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bkm.