Karnataka High Court
Shri A Vinay Krishna vs Dr D B Nateshand on 10 January, 2023
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
C.C.C. No.651/2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI A. VINAY KRISHNA
S/O. SHRI A. KRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SUPPLY CHAIN MD
MAXIM SEMICONSTRUCTERS,
4499, MACKBETH CIRCLE, FREMONT,
CA.94555.
2. DR. A. MALINI
W/O. DR. RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
INDIRA GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
PUDUCHERRY - 605 009.
BOTH COMPLAINANT NOS.1 AND 2
ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY,
SRI A. KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
257/1, KEDUVADKA,
KUBAKA VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR - 574 220.
3. ROYAL ENCLAVE SITE OWNERS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R)
NO.43/48, 5TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
KRISHNADEVARAYA CIRCLE
-2-
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSORE.
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT
SMT. M.N. PREMAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
D/O. S. NARASIMHAIAH,
#134, 23RD MAIN ROAD,
'B' BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 030. ... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE;
SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP TO ASSIST THE COURT ON
BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS)
AND:
1. DR. D.B. NATESHAND
THE COMMISSIONER,
THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 005.
2. THE SECRETARY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
3. SHRI. V. BHASKAR REDDY
PARTNER OF M/S. ROYAL ENCLAVE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
S/O. MR. BALAVEN KATA REDDY,
#412, FIRST FLOOR, WING-4,
SHOBHA DEVELOPER APARTMENT,
NO.18, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078. ... ACCUSED
(R-1 AND R-2 ARE PROFORMA RESPONDENTS;
SRI K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR A-3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
-3-
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SUMMON, PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE 3RD
ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE, WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.10950/2016 AND ALSO TWO UNDERTAKINGS DATED
04.04.2019 AND 11.04.2019.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 06/12/2022, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S. HEMALEKHA J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present contempt petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) to prosecute and punish the 3rd accused-contemnor for deliberate willful disobedience of the order dated 20.02.2020, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10950/2016 and the undertaking dated 04.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 vide Annexures - J & K respectively.
2. The case of the complainant is that the 3rd accused-contemnor had got the plan sanctioned from the 1st accused-Mysore Urban Development Authority ("MUDA") for the purpose of developing the residential -4- layout in an area measuring 38 acres 13 guntas land situated at Maratikyatanahalli of Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. It is the grievance of the complainant that the members of the 3rd complainant-Royal Enclave Site Owners Welfare Association(R) ("Association") and the complainant Nos.1 and 2 have purchased sites from the 3rd accused-contemnor has not completed the layout as per the condition imposed by the 1st accused authority-
MUDA while sanctioning the plan. It is the grievance of the complainants that the request made to the 3rd accused-contemnor to complete the project and enable the owners of the sites to make use of their property was not heeded to. Since the 3rd accused-contemnor did not complete the project, the complainant Nos.1 and 2 approached the Upa Lokayukta with a complaint that the 1st accused- authority is hand in glove with the 3rd accused-contemnor and the interest of the site owners is not protected in terms of the conditions imposed by the authority as per Section 34 of the Karnataka Urban -5- Development Authorities Act, 1987 ("the Act 1987" for short). It is the case of the complainant that the Upa Lokayukta directed the MUDA to initiate action immediately or to be prepared to face the consequences. Consequently, the authorities of the 1st accused-MUDA issued notices to the 3rd accused-
contemnor appraising that if the project is not completed in terms of the sanctioned plan, the 1st respondent-MUDA would take over the project and complete the same as provided under Section 34 of the Act 1987.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that as there was no action taken by the 3rd accused-
contemnor to comply with the issuance of notice by the 1st respondent-MUDA was constrained to file W.P.No.10950/2016 seeking a direction to the 3rd accused-contemnor to start and complete the development work by providing all amenities to the layout called "Royal Enclave" situated in -6- Maratikyatanahalli, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, as approved by the 1st respondent-MUDA at Annexure-E. It is submitted by the complainant that the 3rd accused-
contemnor was required to form a layout by providing various amenities as promised to the complainants before making an application for release of sites for execution of the sale deeds. On the basis of the release order issued by the 1st respondent-MUDA, the 3rd accused-contemnor sold the sites and executed sale deeds in favour of the complainants and other members of the complainant-Association and received the entire sale consideration. After filing of the writ petition, notice was ordered to the 3rd accused-contemnor and the 3rd accused-contemnor, even after receipt of the notice, did not make any effort to appear before the writ Court and hence, learned single Judge was forced to issue bailable warrant against 3rd accused-contemnor and on the issuance bailable warrant, 3rd accused-contemnor appeared and the matter was heard by the learned -7- single Judge from time to time and it was submitted by the complainant that the 3rd accused-contemnor filed an undertaking before the learned single Judge on 04.04.2019 stating that he will complete the entire civil work within five months and further on 11.04.2019 an application of undertaking was again filed by the 3rd accused-contemnor stating that he would comply the civil working within a period of five months. Learned single Judge, on the undertaking given by the 3rd accused-contemnor passed an order on 20.02.2020 directing the accused to commence and complete the entire civic works such as underground drainage, rain water drains, culverts, formation of roads, demarcation of sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipelines in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and that the entire work to be completed within a period of five months.
4. It is also submitted by the complainants that the undertaking given to the Court on the basis of which the order was passed by the learned Judge has -8- not been complied with. The complainant stated that the 3rd accused-contemnor has committed deliberate, willful disobedience of the directions issued by the learned single Judge and sought to initiate appropriate action against the 3rd accused-contemnor.
5. This Court, on the contempt petition, issued notice to the 3rd accused-contemnor on 01.09.2021, the counsel appeared for the 3rd accused-contemnor and sought time to file affidavit and accordingly, the matter was adjourned and listed on 21.10.2021, on the very day, the 3rd accused-contemnor filed his written objections to the contempt petition stating and admitting the filing of an undertaking on 04.04.2019 and another undertaking by way of an application on 11.04.2019 and also admitted that on the basis of the affidavit learned single Judge had issued a direction to the 3rd accused-contemnor to complete the entire civic work within five months from 20.02.2020, but the grievance of the 3rd accused-contemnor in his statement -9- of objections was that due to the out break of pandemic, he could not complete the work undertaken by him within the prescribed time and later the contractor by name Suresh also did not perform his part of work and submitted that the 3rd accused-contemnor was in depression, anxiety and had suicidal tendency and was under constant psychological treatment. It is further stated by the 3rd accused-contemnor that he had entered into Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the contractor, who had in turn undertook to complete the entire civil work within a period of four months and as stipulated in the MOU. It is further stated that the 3rd accused-contemnor was not in a position to complete the work within the stipulated time as he was not in a good health condition and requested this Court to allow 3rd accused-contemnor to complete the civil work taking the help of the said contractors within the stipulated period of four months as mentioned in the MOU.
- 10 -
6. After framing of charges, in view of the provisions of Rule 11 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules 1981, learned HCGP Sri Kiran Kumar was directed to assist the Court on behalf of the complainant.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused-contemnor.
8. Learned HCGP Sri Kiran Kumar appearing on behalf of the complainant would submit that the accused has deliberately and willfully violated the undertaking dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 and on which basis, the learned single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition No.10950/2016 on 20.02.2020 and the said order has reached finality. Learned counsel would submit that there are about 300 cases have been filed against 3rd accused-contemnor and he has been playing fraud on the customers by giving false assurance about
- 11 -
forming a layout and allotting the sites. It is further submitted that the financial difficulties as stated by the 3rd accused-contemnor would not be sustainable for the reason that the complainants have paid the amount in crores as stated by them in their evidence and the same having not been denied by DW.1 - A3 contemnor in his evidence. Learned counsel would submit that the 3rd accused-contemnor is a constant defaulter and he is in the habit of violating the orders passed by this Court.
As could be seen from the order more particularly on 12.1.2022, wherein the contempt petition was dropped on the submission and undertaking given by the 3rd accused-contemnor that the order of the learned single Judge would be completed, provided a month's time is given and in spite of sufficient opportunities afforded by this Court, the 3rd accused-contemnor has neither complied nor made any effort to comply with the order and thus, sought to punish the 3rd accused-contemnor for the offence punishable under Article 215 of the
- 12 -
Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
9. Per contra, learned counsel the 3rdaccused-
contemnor Sri K.K.Vasanth would submit that the contempt petition is clearly barred by limitation as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Learned counsel would submit that the doctrine of merger is applicable to the 3rd accused-contemnor by placing reliance on the undertaking of the accused, the learned single Judge has passed an order and as such, there would not be any violation of the Court order. According to the learned counsel, the undertaking given by the accused does not amount to any willful disobedience to come under the purview of Section 2(b) of the Civil Contempt of Courts Act. It is further submitted that though there is violation in complying the order is not a willful disobedience and sought to drop the contempt petition.
- 13 -
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the complainant has made out a case to punish the 3rd accused-contemnor under Article 215 the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case?"
11. We have considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that the 3rd accused-
contemnor had filed an undertaking in the form of affidavit dated 04.04.2019, which reads as under:
"I, V. Bhaskar Reddy S/o Bala Venkata Reddy aged about 53 years, R/o No.1 & 2 Shresta, 4th Main, Kuvempu Nagar, Doddakalsandra Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
- 14 -
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction against the 1st respondent to complete the layout by providing all facilities/amenities in terms of the sanctioned layout plan under Section 34 of the Urban Development Authority Act. This Hon'ble Court by orders dated 23.10.2018, taking note of the fact that there was a release of the property in excess of the developed area, had directed the issuance of bailable warrant. I have appeared before this Hon'ble Court on
13.11.2018 and the explanation for previous non-appearance was accepted by making it clear that I have to be present as and when called upon. The matter thereafter stood posted to 20.11.2018. On 20.11.2018, 1 had filed Statement of Objections in the open court, however, my counsel had stated that outstanding works would be completed and therefore, this Hon'ble Court directed affidavit to be filed in this regard on 27.11.2018.
2. Accordingly, on 27.11.2018, an affidavit was filed stating that steps will be taken for completion of the entire project within a period of one year six months. It is in this context that this Hon'ble Court observed that the
- 15 -
petitioners' interest needs to be secured and therefore, there was a further direction for filing an addl. Affidavit indicating certain aspects and as such, further affidavit has been filed. It is pursuant to the filing of the further affidavit that this Hon'ble Court by orders dated 3.12.2018 had clearly indicated that an undertaking was to commence the developmental works and if there was any failure, extent of about 38,400 sq.ft of sital area in Site Nos.366 to 382 and 421 to 432, shall be offered as security for the work to be undertaken.
3. I had entered into Memorandum of Understanding with Mr.S.S. Gangadhar who had promised to complete the entire work and even when these proceedings were going on, I had again contacted the said Mr.S.S. Gangadhar who had promised that he would immediately commence the work. It was based on his assurances that such an undertaking was given after the promise that other than the sites, which is remained unsold, I do not have any other source of money for the purpose of completion and has to rely upon the usufructs of the said properties for completion
- 16 -
of the present project. The copy of this MOU has already been produced along with the Statement of Objections as Annexure - R2.
4. However, the reliance on the Statement of the said Mr.S.S. Gangadhar turned out to be disastrous and he did not commence the developmental works as promised by him.
5. The matter was again called on 28.03.2017 where this Hon'ble Court specifically observed that I had not adhered to the affidavit and that I have scant regard to the orders dated 3.12.2018 and therefore, I should be present before the court and to explain regarding the non-adherence of the undertaking. The matter was posted on 28.03.2019 on the basis of the Memo filed by the 1st respondent which reported that no developmental works had been undertaken pursuant to the affidavit that had been filed.
6. I had made my best efforts and I do not have any funds for the purpose of development of this project but there are assets which are available and in my control of which, I have absolute alienable rights. The value of these properties is much more than the actual cost of
- 17 -
the development. For want of liquidity, I am unable to undertake the development and further, the sites also cannot now be dealt with on account of the orders dated 3.12.2018. This piquant situation has been prevailed where unless the sites remains unencumbered, I am not in a position to generate funds and unless funds are generated, I am not in a position to undertake the developmental works. Everything has become correlated. It is during this process that in the last week, one Mr.Suresh has come forward to undertake the development on the same terms and conditions as that of Annexure R2. He has entered into negotiations and the person who had brought him for negotiation is presently in Chennai.
7. I am aware of the consequences of the breach of undertaking and the breach thereof is not unconditional inasmuch as the orders dated 3.12.2018 clearly indicates that in the event of there being any breach of undertaking, the sites in question will have to be offered as security for the due completion of the works.
- 18 -
8. I reiterate that I will complete the developmental works within a period of one year and three months, as three months has already lapsed in terms of my original affidavit and I would require further period of two months to commence the developmental works.
9. I am also ensuring that the development takes place as the remaining sites of which I possess the absolute alienable rights or in the undeveloped portions and secondly, in the middle of the undeveloped portion, extent of about 4 acres 30 guntas cannot be developed on account of the pending civil litigations. There are certain hurdles which I need to come across but sofaras the amenities to the 1st and 2nd petitioners are concerned, I will ensure that the immediate amenities such as road, culverts, sewerage and drawing of the electricity lines insofar as the properties of the petitioners will be taken up on priority and will be completed within a period of two months from today. The first statement which has been made before this Hon'ble Court clearly indicates that the bonafides with which I have approached this Hon'ble Court and I am
- 19 -
making my best efforts to ensure that there is completion of my obligations which I had undertaken and there are certain other statutory obstacles as there is some technical defect in the plan, which however, is not with reference to the property of the petitioners.
10. I further state that there are portions in the property measuring in all about 38 acres and odd and in which about 18 acres has already been developed and the sites of the petitioners are adjoining the developed portions. The affidavit that has been filed with reference to the individual survey number as has already been filed on 24.11.2018, it is a practical difficulty which I have faced as most of the other projects which had undertaken had went into bad weather and there are litigations which I am prosecuting on account of which I have suffered a huge setback in the business. However, I am not taking any exception to the fact that I need to complete my obligations insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.
11. I undertake that from 8.4.2019, I will commence the works in providing necessary
- 20 -
amenities, access, etc. to the sites of the petitioners.
12. Insofar as the other amenities are concerned including C.A. site and the park, this portion has already released and relinquished in favour of MUDA and it is for MUDA to undertake the development of six plots which is included in the amenities which has to be provided. After the first phase of development, which will take place in the first two months for the properties of the petitioners, the remaining portions will also be developed after getting some technical glitches in the plan removed. Therefore, a statutory process and subject thereto, the development of the other amenities to be provided in the layout will be undertaken within a period of one year three months, as has already been stated in the earlier affidavit.
WHEREFORE, the 3rd respondent most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to extend the time by modifying the earlier orders by permitting the 3rd respondent to carry out the developmental works in providing amenities such as roads, culverts,
- 21 -
storm water drains, connectivity of the sewerage and drawing up of the electricity lines insofar as the properties of the petitioners are concerned within a period of two months with the work commenced from 8.4.2019 and pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate, under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."
13. And again on 11.04.2019 filed another affidavit in the form of an application, which reads as under:
"The 3rd respondent submits as under:
1. The 3rd respondent in furtherance of his affidavit dated 4.4.2019 undertakes to commence the works from 8.4.2019, has commenced the work and already undertaken the markings, the land leveling, site demarcations and the road leveling work has been undertaken till date with reference to I phase of the work which he has stated will be completed. The photographs of the property as it existed prior to 4.4.2019 and the status of the property as it exists today is produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and the
- 22 -
same would reflect that there is very substantial progress in a short span of time.
2. The 3rd respondent had already stated that he did not have resources but nonetheless, he is committed to complete the developmental works. It has also been come on record that there is an unsold/encumbered sital of saleable area of about 40,000 sq.ft consisted in various survey numbers. The 3rd respondent had also stated that he had entered into Memorandum of Understanding for completion of the developmental works by bartering the expenditures to be undertaken with the sites of which he has complete alienable rights. This document is also produced as Annexure-R1 and for the purpose of convenience, Annexure-R2 is also produced along with this affidavit.
3. For various reasons, the development in terms of MOU could not be undertaken and as had already stated in his affidavit that he had negotiated with one Mr.Suresh who has come forward to undertake development on the same terms and conditions, he is in a situation where he is in a position to ensure that for the
- 23 -
complete development, leverage has to be given to facilitate the completion of development.
4. By orders dated 3.12.2018, it is specifically stated that the unsold sites would be offered as security for due completion of the works.
5. Since a situation has arisen where unless he barters the sites of which he has alienable rights, he do not have other sources and unless the sites are barted, he cannot complete the development. In such circumstances, the indulgence is required from this Hon'ble Court and therefore, he is seeking for the modification of the earlier orders in permitting him to complete the development in phased manner.
6. The 3rd respondent proposes to complete the entire work in three phases and the details of which is as per the schedule enclosed along with this affidavit. The table given in schedule have indicated that after the completion of the I phase of works, the 1st respondent after verification and certifying the completion of works, may be directed to release the prorata
- 24 -
sites in favour of person who will be brought in as a developer. In the II phase, as detailed in the schedule, substantial works will be undertaken and upon completion of the same, the 1st respondent may certify the completion and to release further sites in favour of 3rd respondent and the developer. Similarly, the III phase will also be completed. The time schedule for completion is also indicated in the schedule and he will make best endeavor to complete the same as per the previous undertakings and also directions of this Hon'ble Court.
7. Since it is specifically stated that unless the development is carried out and certified by the 1st respondent in phased manner, the sites need not be dealt with either by means or by the developer, the interest of all the stake holders/site holders will be safeguarded with due certification of the 1st respondent of the completion of such works. In a situation of this nature, an equitable order of the present nature under the supervision of the orders of this Hon'ble Court would only ensure that the development is also carried out in accordance with law. It is also under the control of the 1st
- 25 -
respondent being Town Planning Authority, the beneficiaries will be of the site owners who have purchased the property and at the same time, it will facilitate the fulfillment of the obligations of the 3rd respondent under the Statute as also the orders of this Hon'ble Court.
WHEREFORE, the 3rd respondent most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to place the averments made in this application on record and to modify the earlier orders dated 20.11.2018. 27.11.2018. 3.12.2018 and 28.03.2019 by directing the 1st respondent to release the sites on completion of phase I, phase II and phase III, as per the schedule to the application and to release the sites as indicated in the schedule and pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate, in the ends of justice."
14. On the basis of the affidavits filed by the 3rd accused-contemnor, the learned Single Judge was pleased to disposed of W.P.10950/2016 vide order dated 20.02.2020 and the relevant portion of the order is at para Nos.8 and 9, which reads as under:
- 26 -
"8. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in the following terms:
1. The third respondent shall commence all civic works such as underground drainage, rain water drains, culverts, formation of roads, demarcation of sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipe lines in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and complete the same within a period of five months as undertaken in the schedule to I.A.No.1/2019.
2. The third respondent shall inform the first respondent authorities about completion of the first phase of the works immediately at the end of five months or even prior to that if the first phase is completed as and when the request is made by the third respondent, the authorities of MUDA shall undertake inspection of the works and make sure that the works as stated in the schedule with respect to first phase have been completed and thereafter on being satisfied, release 12000 sq. ft. of developed sital area to the third respondent-Firm.
- 27 -
3. Similarly on completion of the second phase work, the third respondent shall intimate the first respondent authorities and the authorities shall follow the same procedure as was directed in the case of the first phase.
4. However, with regard to the third phase i.e., the final phase, the first respondent- authorities have to make sure that not only the civic works with respect to Sy.Nos.75 and 45/1 as stated in the schedule has been completed but also of the civic works and development works with respect to the entire project has been completed in terms of the sanction plan and conditions imposed in the sanction plan.
5. It is only after the authorities make sure that the development works of the entire project is complete, shall the first respondent authorities release the balance of 14400 sq. ft. of developed sital area in favour of the third respondent.
- 28 -
9. Needless to observe that this petition is disposed of in the above terms, based on the undertaking given by the third respondent. If for some reason if the third respondent is unable to fulfil the obligation undertaken before this Court, the petitioners are free to move this Court by filing another petition on the same cause of action.
It is ordered accordingly."
15. This Court on 21.10.2021 passed a detailed order considering the objections of the 3rd accused-
contemnor and in view of the admissions made, held that there is no need for further enquiry as it is a clear case of contempt. However, this Court, vide order dated 10.01.2022 afforded an opportunity to the 3rd accused-
contemnor to comply with the order and vide order dated 21.10.2021, the 3rd accused-contemnor was directed to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing. On 18.11.2021, none appeared for the accused in spite of the detailed order passed on 21.10.2021 and as there was no representation on
- 29 -
behalf of the 3rd accused-contemnor, bailable warrant was issued to the 3rd accused-contemnor. In spite of the order issuing bailable warrant to the 3rd accused-
contemnor, a report was submitted by the learned Government Advocate stating that the 3rd accused-
contemnor has vacated the house and is unable to be traced in the present address and hence, warrant could not be served. On 02.12.2021, this Court again issued a non-bailable warrant to the 3rd accused-contemnor with a direction to the jurisdictional police to trace the accused and produce him before the Court within three weeks. Even though there was effort made by Sub-
Inspector of Police, J.P.Nagar Police Station, the 3rd accused-contemnor was not traceable and a report was submitted on 04.01.2022 and again on the said date, further three weeks time was granted to the jurisdictional police to trace the accused and to produce before the Court. On 10.01.2022, the 3rd accused-
contemnor was produced by the Sub-Inspector of Police
- 30 -
and Head Constable of J.P. Nagar Police Station at 1.30 p.m. and a detailed order came to be passed on 10.01.2022 by this Court which reads as under:
"The present contempt petition is filed by the complainants against respondent-accused No.3 to take action against him under Sections
11 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, for his willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No.10950 of 2016, wherein, the learned Single Judge on the basis of affidavit and the undertaking given by respondent-accused No.3 dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 disposed of the writ petition on 20.02.2020. In terms of the undertaking, respondent-accused No.3 was directed to commence all civil works, such as, underground drainage, rain water drains, culverts, formation of roads, demarcation of sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipe lines in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and complete the same within a period of five months as undertaken in the Schedule to IA.1 of 2019 and issued totally five directions. Since the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the undertaking given by
- 31 -
respondent-accused No.3 is not complied with, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 25.08.2021.
2. This Court by order dated 01.09.2021 has issued emergent notice to respondent-accused No.3. Accordingly, Sriyuths.B Siddeswara, Suresh and B K Chandan, learned counsels filed power on 23.09.2021. When the matter was posted on 23.09.2021, Sri.B Siddeswara, learned counsel sought for time and two weeks time was granted to enable him to file the affidavit.
3. When the matter came up before this Court on 21.10.2021, Sri.B K Chandan, learned counsel for the accused filed written objections of accused No.3 along with documents stating that he could not complete the work within the time stipulated by this Court. Therefore, this court observed that, the objections clearly depicts that the accused has disobeyed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is a clear case of contempt. It is not the case of accused No.3 that due to COVID-19, he was outpatient and therefore, he could not complete the construction work within the time stipulated. He has not filed
- 32 -
any application for extension of time before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this Court cannot extend the time. In view of the admission made in the objections, there is no need for further enquiry as it is a clear case of contempt. In order to give one more opportunity, respondent-accused No.3 was directed to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
4. When the matter was posted on 18.11.2021, none appeared for the accused including Sri.B K Chandan, learned counsel. Therefore, this Court issued bailable warrant. When the matter was posted on 02.12.2021, again none appeared for the accused. Thereby, this Court issued non-bailable warrant to respondent-accused No.3 through jurisdictional police. Again the matter came to be posted on 04.01.2022 and on the request made by learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions of Sub Inspector of Police, JP Nagar that in spite of making all efforts, they could not trace accused No.3, three weeks time was granted to trace the accused and produce him before the Court
- 33 -
(either dead or alive) without seeking further time.
5. Today, Sri.Karagaiah H, Sub Inspector of Police and Sri.Anand, Head Constable of JP Nagar Police Station have produced respondent-accused No.3 at 1.30 p.m. before this Court. Thereby, we have posted the matter specially at 2.30 p.m.
6. Sri.V Bhaskar Reddy, respondent- accused No.3 represented by Sri.B K Chandan, learned Counsel submits before the Court that he will commence the work within a period of one month from today. To that effect, he will file an affidavit before this Court.
7. In the interest of justice, we post the matter on 12.01.2022 to file the affidavit and undertaking before the Court.
8. Since respondent-accused No.3 has undertaken to file an affidavit to that effect, he is ordered to be released from the custody. However, he shall ensure to file the affidavit on 12.01.2022.
9. Office to show the name of Sri.B K Chandan, as learned counsel for respondent- accused No.3.
- 34 -
10. The efforts made by the Sub Inspector of Police and the Head Constable to trace and produce respondent-accused No.3 before the Court is appreciated and the same is placed on record."
16. On 10.01.2022, though the 3rd accused-
contemnor evaded the service of notice of this Court time and again, in order to afford an opportunity to comply with the order of learned single Judge, the matter was posted on 12.01.2022 to the 3rd accused-
contemnor and was released from the custody.
17. When the matter was posted on 12.01.2022, an undertaking was given before this Court by 3rd accused-contemnor, who had appeared through video conference and reiterated the undertaking affidavit dated 12.01.2022 submitted before this Court that he would undertake to commence the work within one month and that the same would be reported to this Court. Accordingly, this contempt petition was disposed with liberty to revive the petition if 3rd accused-
- 35 -
contemnor fails to fulfill the terms of undertaking given in the affidavit dated 12.01.2022.
18. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to filing of the contempt petition, vide order dated 12.01.2022 on an undertaking submitted by the 3rd accused-
contemnor, the contempt petition was dropped on the earlier occasion. The relevant portion of the undertaking of 3rd accused-contemnor dated 12.01.2022 at paragraph No.3 reads as under:
"3. I state that meanwhile, the complainant had filed this above civil contempt proceedings in which due to my health issue I could not appear before this Hon'ble Court hence this Court was pleased to issue Non Bailable warrant. Subsequently, the jurisdictional police had arrested and produced me before this Hon'ble Court, where I have undertaken to commence the work within one month, in unavoidable circumstances (due to COVID/government restrictions) I may be permitted for some more time, hence this affidavit."
- 36 -
19. And accordingly, the contempt petition was dropped on an undertaking given by the 3rd accused-
contemnor that he will commence the work within one month and file progress report before this Court time and again and in the event, the undertaking given by the 3rd accused-contemnor is not fulfilled then this Court would take serious view and initiate proceedings against the 3rd accused-contemnor without there being any enquiry conducted against him.
20. The 3rd accused-contemnor having failed to comply even after the undertaking given before this Court on 12.01.2022, the complainant has filed application for revival of the order dated 12.01.2022.
21. As the 3rd accused-contemnor did not comply with the terms as per the undertaking submitted by him before this Court on 12.01.2022, the complainant filed I.A.No.1/2022 for recalling the order dated 12.01.2022.
Subsequently, when the matter was listed on
- 37 -
23.06.2022, the undertaking given having not been complied with, this Court again issued non-bailable warrant to 3rd accused-contemnor through the jurisdictional police. On 30.06.2022, the non-bailable warrant issued to 3rd accused-contemnor was not executed as 3rd accused-contemnor was not traceable in the address given and on 14.07.2022, the 3rd accused-
contemnor was secured by the J.P.Nagar Police with great difficulty and the learned Government Advocate submitted that there were 275 warrants issued against the 3rdaccused-contemnor and sought for imposing stringent conditions on the 3rd accused-contemnor while enlarging him on bail. Smt. Renuka, the wife of the 3rd accused-contemnor undertook that she would be a surety and would ensure his presence on each date of hearing and the non-bailable warrant issued on 23.06.2022 was recalled. Pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2022, when the matter was listed on 18.07.2022 the wife of the accused filed an affidavit that 3rd
- 38 -
accused-contemnor is suffering from severe hypertension as he had lost his mother on 11.06.2022 and stated before the Court that on every date of hearing, that 3rd accused-contemnor would be present and the matter was adjourned to be listed after three weeks to report amicable settlement, if any. Finally, when the matter was listed on 11.08.2022, another week's time was granted on the request of learned counsel for the 3rd accused-contemnor for compliance of order passed by this Court, failing which, this Court directed 3rd accused-contemnor to be present before the Court for "framing of charges". In the application filed by the complainant to recall the order dated 12.01.2022, the contempt petition came to be dropped reserving liberty to the complainants to file an application for revival of the order. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 was allowed and the contempt petition was restored to original file. Again at that stage i.e., on 18.08.2022, when the 3rd accused-contemnor was called
- 39 -
to the witness box to frame the charges, learned counsel for the 3rd accused-contemnor sought two weeks' time finally and as a last chance two weeks' time was granted.
22. This Court on 25.08.2022, observed that in spite of several orders passed by this court and having afforded several opportunities to the 3rd accused-
contemnor to comply with the orders passed by the learned single Judge in lieu of an undertaking submitted by the 3rd accused-contemnor and the submission made before this Court that the order of the learned single Judge would be complied and having not complied with the same, the Court has framed charge on 25.08.2022.
23. The order sheet reveals that even before and after the order of revival on several occasions, sufficient opportunity was accorded to the 3rd accused-contemnor to comply with the order passed by the learned single Judge and also the undertaking submitted before this
- 40 -
court. The 3rd accused-contemnor has not only violated the order of the learned single Judge, but also violated the undertaking submitted before this Court. It is also relevant to state the presence of the 3rd accused-
contemnor was secured on three occasions through jurisdictional police as the 3rd accused-contemnor was avoiding his presence before this Court for one or the other reason. This Court framed the charges on 25.08.2022, which reads as under:
"That you accused No.3 has willfully disobeyed the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court in W.P. No.10950/2016 and also two undertakings dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 given to this Court to complete the entire civil works/ constructions/developmental works of the layout namely Royal Enclave.
Thereby you have willfully and deliberately not complied with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court in W.P.
- 41 -
No.10950/2016 and also two undertakings dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 given by you. This act of you amounts to civil contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court."
And plea was recorded as under:
"Question : Have you heard the charge now read over and explained to you?
Answer : Yes.
Question : Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make?
Answer : I do not plead guilty and I have defence to make.
24. The complainant examined himself as CW. 1 and categorically stated about the willful and deliberate disobedience of two undertakings dated 04.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 and submitted in Writ Petition No.10950/2016 and on the basis of the undertaking submitted by the 3rd accused-contemnor, learned single Judge has disposed of the matter on 20.02.2020. The
- 42 -
complainant stated that this Court by order dated 12.01.2022 had also disposed of the contempt petition on an undertaking submitted by the 3rd accused-
contemnor that he would comply and complete the work within a period of one month. The cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused is to the effect that the 3rd accused-contemnor has no other source of income and as such, the project could not be completed.
However, the complainant has specifically stated that the purchasers had paid a sum of Rs.45.00 crore to the 3rd accused-contemnor for allotment of site and development works of the layout and the complainant has also stated about the settlement tried between the parties and the accused has miserably failed in coming to any settlement.
25. On the other hand, the 3rd accused-
contemnor examined himself as DW.1 and admitted about the undertakings and the order passed by the learned single Judge. The case stated by the 3rd
- 43 -
accused-contemnor was that he was in financial difficulties and as such, he had entered into an agreement with the developers for the development of works of the layout but however, the said contractors could not continue due to their health issues. In the examination- in-chief, DW.1-3rd accused-contemnor has categorically stated that he would require more time for identification and demarcation of the work and the contractor has assured that he would complete the construction works within three months and that he has not willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court and the evidence of DW.1-3rd accused-contemnor was recorded on 18.10.2022. In the cross-examination of DW.1-3rd accused-contemnor admitted that there are 200 cases filed against him by his customers before various forums that is in respect of not forming the layout and not providing of sites.
26. The provisions of Section 2(b) of the Civil Contempt Act, reads as under:
- 44 -
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) x x x
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court"
27. A careful reading of provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act an act of "willful"
means which is done voluntarily and intentionally". The second part "breach of an undertaking given to the Court". In order to come in the second part, wherein a willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court has been violated, it is necessary to see whether the undertaking given by the person is capable of execution in normal courses and that it does not require any extraordinary effort to comply with the undertaking given to the Court would come under the purview of Section2(b) of the Civil Contempt and undoubtedly, as admitted by the 3rd accused-contemnor himself, the
- 45 -
accused has committed willful disobedience of the order of the Court by committing the breach of undertaking given before the learned single Judge on the basis of which alone, the learned single Judge passed the order.
As could be seen from the material on record, the 3rd accused-contemnor has not only willfully disobeyed the undertaking given before the learned single Judge and despite repeated adjournments granted by this Court to comply with the order of the learned single Judge and to comply with the order dated 12.1.2022 passed by this Court, the 3rd accused-contemnor has failed to accord to the terms of his undertaking and the order.
28. The statute confers a special power upon the court to pass a sentence of imprisonment, and a fine for the guilty of committing civil contempt and our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Hon'ble Justice S. TejaSingh [AIR 1954 SC 186], has categorically held at para Nos.20, 21 and 22 as under:
- 46 -
"20. The Pepsu High Court was established in 1948 and Section 33 of the Ordinance which established it recites that it shall be a court of Record and that it shall have power to punish for contempt. It will be remembered that the Charter of 1774 which established a Supreme Court for Bengal said the same thing of that court and yet the Privy Council did not trace its powers about contempt from the Charter but from the Common Law. In the same way, the law by this time was so well settled in matters of contempt that the words "court of record" and "power to punish for contempt" had acquired a special meaning. Consequently, it is immaterial whether in 1948 the power of the Pepsu High Court was derived from Section 33 or was inherent in the nature of the court because whichever it is the jurisdiction is a special one, and had the legislature desired to take it away and confer another kind of jurisdiction it would have been necessary to use express words in view of the case law which by then had become well established.
In 1950 came the Constitution of India and Article 215 states that-
- 47 -
"Every High court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."
Here again, whether this is a fresh conferral of power or a continuation of existing powers hardly matters because whichever way it is viewed the jurisdiction is a special one and so is outside the purview of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was repealed by Act 32 of 1952. Section 3 of the new Act is similar to Section 2 of the old and, far from conferring a new jurisdiction, assumes, as did the old Act, the existence of a right to punish for contempt in every High Court and further assumes the existence of a special practice and procedure, for it says that every High Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority "in accordance with the same procedure and practice". These words are new and would be inappropriate if the Criminal Procedure Code applied. In any case, so far as contempt of a High Court itself is concerned, as distinct from one of a subordinate court, the Constitution vests these rights in every High Court, so no
- 48 -
Act of a legislature could take away that jurisdiction and confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority. It is true Section 5 expands the ambit of the authority beyond what was till then considered to be possible but it does not confer a new jurisdiction. It merely widens the scope of an existing jurisdiction of a very special kind.
21. On reflection it will be apparent that the Code could not be called in aid in such cases, for if the Code applies it must apply in its entirety and in that event how could such proceedings be instituted? The maximum punishment is now limited to six months' simple imprisonment or a fine of Rs.2000 or both because of the 1952 Act. Therefore, under the second schedule to the Code contempt would be triable by a Magistrate and not by a High Court and the procedure would have to be a summons procedure. That would take away the right of a High Court to deal with the matter summarily and punish, a right which was well established by the case law up to 1945 and which no subsequent legislation has attempted to remove. So also Section 556 could not apply, nor would the rule which
- 49 -
prohibits a Judge from importing his own knowledge of the facts into the case. We hold therefore that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply in matters of contempt triable by the High Court. The High Court can deal with it summarily and adopt its own procedure. All that is necessary is that the procedure is fair and that the contemnor is made aware of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This rule was laid down by the Privy Council in In re Pollard and was followed in India and in Burma in In re Vallabhdasi and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh v. King Emperor. In our view that is stiff the law.
22. If the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply, then there is no other power which we can exercise. The Constitution gives every High Court the right and the power to punish a contempt of itself. If we were to order a transfer to another court in this case we would be depriving the Pepsu High Court of the right which is so vested in it. We have no more power to do that than has a legislature. As for transfer from one Judge to another, there again there is no original jurisdiction which we
- 50 -
can exercise. It is not a fundamental right and so Article 32 has no application and there is no other law to which recourse can be had. This petition is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. Contemplating that the High Court can deal with the contempt as a summary proceeding and adopt its own procedure as the jurisdiction is a special one and the existence of right to punish for contempt in every Court and further assumes the existence of special practice and procedure only fact to be taken into consideration is that the procedure is to be fair and the contemnor is to be made aware of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The 3rd accused-contemnor was accorded sufficient opportunity from time to time, the 3rd accused-contemnor has willfully disobeyed the order of the Court.
- 51 -
30. The 3rd accused-contemnor is not entitled for any lenience in punishment as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and another [(2004) 1 SCC 360] at para Nos.16 and 17 has held as under:
"16. Coming to the question of sentence, we are conscious of the fact that the power to punish for contempt must always be exercised consciously, wisely and with circumspection. At the same time, the court should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a grossly contemptuous act of a party. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society (see Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re). The present petition was heard on 27-8-2003 when we enquired whether the respondents would be willing to deposit the amount. Learned counsel for the respondents
- 52 -
sought time and the case was adjourned to 23- 9-2003 and then to 14-10-2003 and finally to 28-10-2003. However, even on the said date, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the problems of the respondents in depositing the amount and so the matter was heard on merits. The position remains that though under the consent decree passed by this Court on 28- 7-1999, the respondents had to deposit the first instalment on or before 1-11-1999 and the last instalment by 1-8-2001, but they have not deposited or paid even a single penny. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no occasion for showing any leniency in the matter of punishment.
17. We, accordingly, hold that the respondents have committed contempt of court for which they are sentenced to undergo four months' imprisonment. It is, however, directed that after they have undergone 15 days' imprisonment, they shall be released on short- term bail for a period of three months on their furnishing bail bonds etc. to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Bombay High Court. If during this period of three months, they deposit the entire amount in terms of the consent decree
- 53 -
dated 28-7-1999, the sentence of four months' imprisonment imposed upon them shall be reduced to the period already undergone, failing which they will undergo the balance period of imprisonment."
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and another [(2006) 11 SCC 114] while considering the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act has categorically held at para Nos.14 to 18 which read as under:
"14. A different view was taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka v. Kapurchand Lid. In that case, a suit for specific performance by execution of a lease was compromised and consent terms were filed in the Court and an order was passed thereon. One of the terms in the compromise recorded an undertaking by the defendant to have a third party joined as a confirming party to the lease which the defendant had agreed to execute in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to execute the lease. The
- 54 -
plaintiff took out proceedings for execution and the lease was executed by an officer of the Court. The defendant then refused to get the third party to confirm the lease in terms of his undertaking. The plaintiff took out an application for contempt of court. The Single Judge allowed the application holding that the defendant was guilty of wilful default and asked the defendant to carry out the undertaking within one month failing which a warrant of arrest would issue. In the appeal preferred by the defendant, it was contended by him that no undertaking was given by the defendant to the Court. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto cases. The Division Bench rejected the submission and dismissed the appeal saying:
(AIR p. 337, para 4)-
"4. We are not prepared to accept a position which seems to us contrary to the long practice that has been established in this Court,..."
The Court opined that: (AIR p. 338, para 7) "The expression 'undertake' has come to acquire through long practice, a technical
- 55 -
meaning. In all orders and decrees of the Court, whenever the expression 'a party undertakes' has been used, it has always borne the meaning that the undertaking has been to the Court. ... What is more, it has been held by Bhagwati, J.-an opinion with which I entirely agree-that it has been the long-standing practice on the original side that, whenever counsel wishes to give an undertaking to the Court, he never expressly uses the words 'to the Court' but merely states that he undertakes on behalf of his client, ..."
Accordingly it was concluded: (AIR pp. 338-39, paras 7 & 8) "We can only construe the undertaking given by the defendants as an undertaking given to the Court and not given to the other side.
... The very fact that the Court passed a decree after an undertaking was embodied in the consent terms clearly shows that the Court did sanction a particular course; and that course was the putting of its imprimatur upon the consent
- 56 -
terms. The Court was led to pass an order upon the defendants to execute a lease in view of the fact that an undertaking was given by the defendants to get the Paradise Cinema, Limited, to join the lease."
15. The view expressed by the Bombay High Court has, in our opinion, been approved by this Court in Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya. The Calcutta High Court's judgment to the contrary in Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury does not therefore correctly reflect the law.
16. In the face of such apparent divergence, the Sanyal Committee was set up and asked to examine the law of contempt with a view to its clarification and reforming it wherever necessary. The present statute is the outcome of those suggestions.
17. The Sanyal Committee Report which preceded the framing the enactment of the Act, had opined:
"The 1952 Act is sound as far as it goes. While its provisions may be retained, its scope requires to be widened considerably."
- 57 -
18. The Act has been duly widened. It provides inter alia for definitions of the terms and lays down firmer bases for exercise of the court's jurisdiction in contempt. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as meaning "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court". (emphasis supplied) Analysed, the definition provides for two categories of cases, namely, (1) wilful disobedience to a process of court, and (2) wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. As far as the first category is concerned, the word "any" further indicates the wide nature of the power. No distinction is statutorily drawn between an order passed after an adjudication and an order passed by consent. This first category is separate from the second and cannot be treated as forming part of or taking colour from the second category. The legislative intention clearly was to distinguish between the two and create distinct classes of contumacious behaviour. Interestingly, the courts in England have held that the breach of a consent decree of specific
- 58 -
performance by refusal to execute the agreement is punishable by way of proceedings in contempt (see C.H. Giles and Co. Ltd. v. Morris)."
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. The law is well settled that if any party gives an undertaking to the Court under the orders of the Court, there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof and it amounts to a civil contempt and the party to a litigation may be held liable for such a contempt.
Though the learned counsel for accused No.3 tried to contend that there is no willful, deliberate disobedience on the part of the 3rd accused-contemnor, the material on record clearly depicts that the undertaking has been breached, which became part of the decree of the Court and amounts to contempt of the Court.
33. For the reasons stated supra, the point framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative holding that the complainant has made out a case to punish the accused for the Contempt of Court under
- 59 -
Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
34. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The civil contempt petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The 3rd accused-contemnor is hereby convicted for the contempt of Court, punishable under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) or to complete the construction works as admitted by him in the cross-examination within a period of three months from today, whichever is earlier, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
(iii) The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to prepare a warrant of commitment and detention in
- 60 -
respect of 3rd accused-contemnor in Form No.3 as contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 and take further action against the accused to undergo punishment imposed.
(iv) The assistance rendered by the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the complainants to arrive at this conclusion is appreciated and placed on record and the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority is directed to pay honorarium of Rs.10,000/- to Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE S*