Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr. Mr. V.M. Kerudi vs Sri. B.N. Krsishnaiah (Ret Ias) on 16 August, 2017

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST 2017

                         PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
                           AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

               CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE
             Nos.100098-100099/2017 [CIVIL]

 BETWEEN:

 1.     DR. MR. V.M. KERUDI
        SON OF LATE MR.MALLESHAPPA,
        AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

 2.     MR.S.V. KERUDI
        SON OF MR.V.M. KERUDI,
        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
        REPRESENTED BY COMPLAINANT NO.1.

 BOTH RESIDING AT
 R/AT: #922 KERUDI COMPLEX,
 ASHOKA CIRCLE,
 RANEBENNUR-58115, HAVERI.                 ...COMPLAINANTS

 (BY SRI.V.M.KERUDI, COMPLAINANT-PARTY-IN-PERSON)

 AND:

 1.     SRI. B.N. KRISHNAIAH (RET IAS)
        ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
        STATE OF KARNATAKA,
        HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
                            2




     KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
     COMMISION, 6TH & 7TH FLOOR,
     MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS,
     NO.9/2, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2.   SRI.RAMESH,
     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINNER
     (ELECTRICAL), HUBLI ELECTRICITY
     SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
     (HESCOM), O & M SUB-DIVISION,
     P.B. ROAD, RANEBENNUR-581115,
     HAVERI.

3.   SRI.S.P. SAKKARI,
     M.D. HESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE,
     P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR,
     HUBBALLI, DHARWAD.

4.   SRI.KAMBLE,
     CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
     REDRESSAL FORUM,
     (CGRF) OF HESCOM LIMITED,
     NEALAGOUDAR COMPLEX,
     P.B. ROAD, HAVERI.                     ...ACCUSED

(SRI.VEERESH.R.BUDIHAL & S.SRIRANGA,
 VIKRAM.U.R, PRASHANT MURTHY.S.G, ADVS. FOR A1-A3,
 SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADV. FOR A4)

      THESE CONTEMPT CASES ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W.
ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
INSTITUTE AN ENQUIRY AND INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS
AGAINST THE ALL THE ACCUSED FOR THEIR WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.NO.27065-66/2012/(GM-KEB) DATED 21.04.2016
PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THESE CONTEMPT CASES COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, L.NARAYANA SWAMY J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                  3




                            ORDER

Heard the complainants/party-in-person.

2. The contempt is against the order dated 21.04.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.27065-66/2012 (GM- KEB), wherein the complainants challenged Annexure-A dated 19.12.2011. The prayer made by the complainants was to set aside the said order passed by the first respondent-Ombudsman. This Court while allowing the writ petitions on 21.04.2016 set aside the impugned order therein at Annexure-A dated 19.12.2011 and remitted the matter to the respondent with an observation that Annexure-A is to be re-considered afresh by providing an opportunity to the petitioners. And further it has directed the petitioners to appear before the Ombudsman-first respondent on 12.05.2016.

3. It is the case of the complainants that as per the direction issued by this Court, the case has not 4 been disposed of. In support of his case, he has referred to number of citations.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that, as it was directed by this Court, the appeal filed by the petitioners was considered and disposed of in accordance with law by its order dated 21.10.2016. Hence, it is submitted that the direction has been complied.

5. Heard the complainants/party-in-person as well as the respondents/accused.

6. This Court on an earlier occasion on 07.06.2017 observed and suggested the complainants to seek appropriate legal advice in the matter as to whether to continue this contempt petition or to file writ petition challenging the order dated 21.10.2016.

7. This matter coming on for hearing. After having heard both the parties and after examining the 5 case of both parties, it is found that, direction issued by this Court on 21.04.2016 produced at Annexure-A, the respondents-accused have considered and passed the order dated 21.10.2016. Hence, according to our opinion, order of this Court has been complied. As such, we observe that there is no contempt against the respondents-accused.

8. In view of the same, the liberty is reserved to the complainants, if they are aggrieved, to challenge Annexure-B-the order passed on 21.10.2016.

9. With this observation, the contempt petitions stand dropped.

Sd/ JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE Sh