Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Krishna Murthy vs Sri H C Ramachandra on 12 June, 2012
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
CCC (Civil) NO.129/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri.M.R.Krishna Murthy
S/o.Late Range Gowda
Aged about 70 years
Residing at Marakuli Grama
Shanthigrama Hobli
Hassan Taluk. ... Complainant
(By Sri.C.M.Prakash, Advocate)
AND:
1.Sri.H.C.Ramachandra
Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
Hassan.
2.Sri.K.B.Devaraja
Secretary
Public Works Department
2
The Government of Karnataka
Bangalore. ... Accused
This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Court Act by the Complainant, wherein he
prays that the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to take
cognizance of the contempt against the accused for
disobeying the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
26-08-2009 in W.P.No.18837/2009 (Annexure-A)
This CCC is coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., made the following:
ORDER
Contempt petition by the petitioner in W.P.No.18837/2009(KLR-RES), disposed of by this court as per the order dated 26th August 2009, under which the respondents were directed to consider the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3
2. Present contempt is on the premise that notwithstanding such directions issued by this court, the accused persons have not obeyed the court order; that it amounts to deliberate disobedience and therefore, the accused are liable for punishment for committing contempt of court order; that though more than three months have elapsed long back, the accused persons have not complied or obeyed the court order and therefore this contempt.
3. We have heard Sri.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
4. We find that the orders of this nature to consider the request or representation of the writ petitioner for grant of relief in terms of request or representation in accordance with law, is more in the nature of a benevolent, sympathetic order than any mandamus issued by this 4 Court. We are reluctant to exercise contempt jurisdiction under such circumstances.
5. Therefore, while declining to exercise contempt jurisdiction in the present case, we reserve liberty to the complainant to work out his rights and remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.
6. This contempt petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*