Karnataka High Court
Sri Rafeeq Ahmed vs Sri. Manjunath Prasad on 1 December, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
C.C.C. No.1778/2019 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAFEEQ AHMED
AGEDA BOUT 65 YEARS
S/O. LATE ABDUL REHMAN,
2. SMT. SHABANA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O. RAFEEQ AHMED,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.7,
MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 084. ... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCTAE (NOC))
AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD
COMMISSIONER, B.B.M.P.
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI ASHOK
JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE - 560 064. ... ACCUSED
(BY SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR A-1 AND A-2)
-2-
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 , BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED
TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONTEMPT AGAINST THE
ACCUSED FOR THE VIOLATION/WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF
THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.NO.8794/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present contempt petition is filed by the complainant to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 09.04.2019 made in W.P. No.8794/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge while disposing of the matter on merits, directed both the parties to maintain status-quo as on date and paragraph No.11 of the order reads as under:
"11. Needless to state that in light of the identity of properties being demarcated by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk as per the directions issued in W.P.Nos.8819-8820/2019 -3- and herein, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date."
2. The specific grievance of the complainant is that in spite of the order passed by this Court to maintain status-quo, the accused in violation of the order has proceeded with construction work. Thereby, the accused committed contempt of Court as per photographs produced by the complainant at Annexures-D, E and F, which show that the construction is going on.
3. In response to the notice issued, Sri. V. Sreenidhi, learned counsel appearing for the accused files an affidavit of Sri. Ashok D.R., Joint Secretary, Office of the Special Officer, Competent Authority (IMA & other KPID Cases), Bengaluru, wherein it is averred at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 as under:
"6. I submit that the BBMP has not willfully violated the order dated 09.04.2019. I -4- submit that the BBMP has not precipitated the matter in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 09.04.2019. I further submit that even before the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge i.e. on 09.04.2019, the Work Order was issued on 08.03.2018 for construction of compound wall and other works to Muslim Burial Ground in the land bearing Sy.No. 28 of Bellahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Copy of the said Work Order dated 08.03.2018 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.2. I submit that the said Work Order was fully completed and the Completion Certificate was also issued on 07.01.2019. Copy of the Completion Certificate is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.3.
7. I further submit that the entire construction of compound wall was completed. However, there were some routine repair work which was undertaken by the BBMP in terms of plastering certain portions which needed to be repaired. The Complainant is alleging that there is willful disobedience of the order dated 09.04.2019, because of repair work that is -5- being undertaken. I submit that neither me nor the officials of the BBMP have willfully or deliberately violated the orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 09.04.2019."
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that as long back as on 07.01.2019, completion certificate of the compound wall was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Bangalore-92 to the Contractor. But on perusal of Annexures-D, E and F, it is clear that the plastering of the compound wall is complete, only a patch of compound wall remains, and it was plastered on 10.04.2019 i.e., after the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. When the order was passed by this Court, learned counsel for the BBMP, who was representing respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the writ petition, should have intimated respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to proceed with the work. The mistake is committed by the counsel and the BBMP cannot take -6- the advantage since BBMP was represented by the counsel before this Court. The affidavit clearly depicts that there is a violation, but not a willful violation as construction of compound wall was completed on 07.09.2019, with almost all of the compound wall plastered except for the patch work, and thus the plastering of patch work was completed thereby, though there was no willful violation but once the Court had passed the order to maintain status-quo to both the parties, if they wanted to protect the compound wall because of rains, there was no impediment for the BBMP to file necessary application before this Court and bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge the existing situation of the property and without there being any application for modification, they Could not have proceeded. Thereby, even though a small patch of plastering work has been completed, it is still a violation of the order. -7- Thereby, the concerned accused is liable to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
5. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER The Civil Contempt proceedings are hereby dropped subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-
payable by the Joint Secretary, Office of the Special Officer, Competent Authority (IMA & other KPID Cases), Bengaluru to the complainant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, with a warning to the accused that he shall not repeat such mistakes in future.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBM