Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Sri P Thippe Rudrappa vs The Advocate General on 29 November, 2010

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Karnataka High Court
Rudrappa Madivalar vs E. Venkataiah, Ias on 14 March, 2013
Author: D B Keshavanarayana
                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013

                       PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA

           C.C.C. Nos. 3006-3026/2013 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

1.   RUDRAPPA MADIVALAR
     S/O. VEERAPPA MADIVALAR
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     #19, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
     DIST: KOPPAL.

2.   BASANAGOUDA AGASIMUNDINA
     AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS,
     S/O: DODDANAGOUDA AGASIMUNDINA,
     # 25, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL,
     DIST: KOPPAL.

3.   VIJAY KUMAR KURGOD
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     S/O. RAMCHANDRAPPA KURGOD,
     #01, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL,
     DIST: KOPPAL.
                          2




4.   SHARNAPPA MULINAMNI,
     AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
     S/O. GULAREDDY MULLIMANI,
     #04, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.

5.   PRAMILA GADAD,
     AGED ABOUT: 57 YEARS,
     W/O. SHARNAPPA GADAG,
     #05, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.

6.   NAGARAJ GUDURU,
     AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
     S/O. SHARNAPPA GUDURU,
     # 06, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
     DIST: KOPPAL.

7.   PRADEEPKUMAR GALAGALI,
     AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
     S/O. BALAKRISHAN RAO GALAGALI,
     # 07, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
     DIST: KOPPAL.

8.   YALLAPPA MADAR,
     AGED ABOUT: 39 YEARS,
     S/O. DODDANAGOUDA AGASIMUNDINA,
     # 08, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
     DIST: KOPPAL.

9.   JAYASHEELA
     AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS,
     W/O. BASAVARAJ BANDIHAL,
     #09, KHB QUARTERS,
     GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
                             3




      DIST: KOPPAL.

10.   TIMMAYYA
      AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
      S/O. NARASAPPA,
      # 10, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

11.   SUDHAKAR D G,
      AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
      S/O. GANGAPPA D. M.,
      #11, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

12.   SHARANA BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
      AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS,
      S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
      #12, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

13.   RAMAPPA KALLALLI,
      AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
      S/O. ADIVEPPA KALLALLI,
      #13, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

14.   AJITH K .,
      AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
      S/O. JANARDANACHAR,
      #14, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

15.   KUMARASWAMY HIREMATH,
      AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS,
                              4




      S/O. TOTAYYA HIREMATH,
      #15, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

16.   CHANDRASHEKHAR KUSHTAGI,
      AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
      S/O. FAKIRAPPA KUSHTAGI,
      #17, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

17.   BASAVARAJ BEERANAIKAR,
      AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS,
      S/O. FAKIRAPPA BEERANAIKAR,
      #18, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

18.   SURENDRAGOUDA
      AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
      S/O. ANNADANI,
      #20, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

19.   BASAVARAJ WALAD,
      AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS,
      S/O. SIDDAPPA WALAD,
      #22, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.

20.   NARAYANASWAMY
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
      S/O. NARASIMHAPPA
      #23, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL,
      DIST : KOPPAL.
                            5




21.   BASAVARAJ PALLED,
      AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
      S/O. FAKIRAPPA PALLED,
      #24, KHB QUARTERS,
      GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL.
      DIST: KOPPAL.
                                    ... COMPLAINANTS

(BY SRI : P. V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

AND :

E. VENKATAIAH, IAS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
PORTS AND INLAND WATERWAYS (BUILDINGS)
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
                                         ... ACCUSED

(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, A.G.A.)

     THESE C.C.Cs. ARE FILED U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF COURTS ACT AND R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING
WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED:12/06/2012,
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP Nos.63953 AND
63970-63993/2012, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND TO PUNISH
HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

      THESE C.C.Cs. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
DILIP B. BHOSALE J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   6




PC :

       These contempt of court cases (civil) are filed by the

complainants alleging willful disobedience of the order dated

12.06.2012 by the respondent - accused.

2. The respondent - accused, vide order dated 12.06.2012 was directed to take decision in the matter based on the communication of respondent No.1 - Housing Board in writ petition, (Annexure-A) dated 20.1.2012 on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

3. Learned Government advocate has placed on record a counter affidavit dated 13.03.2013 stating that as per the directions issued by this Court the respondent - accused decided the case on 02.07.2012. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that at no point of time the accused informed the decision / order to the petitioners - complainants. The decision of the respondent - accused is also placed on record with the counter affidavit. Keeping that in view, we do 7 not find that there was any disobedience of order as alleged. However, in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that the petitioners - complainants shall not be dispossessed for a period of six weeks' from today with liberty to the petitioners - complainants to challenge the decision of the respondent - accused dated 02.07.2012 in appropriate proceedings. It is also open to the complainants to seek interim order in the proceedings that they propose to file against the decision dated 02.07.2012. With these observations, contempt of court cases are disposed of.

Sd/ JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE hnm/-