S. Vasudeva Advocate vs Ranganath S.V. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka, Vidhana Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 560001, Subir Hari Singh Secretary, Housing and Urban Department, M.S. Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore - 560001 and Sham Bhat, Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore - 560020

Shylendra Kumar, J.—Sri B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, learned counsel for third accused, has placed before the court an affidavit sworn to by Sri. T. Sham Bhat, third accused in this contempt petition, for reporting compliance and it is indicated in para-4 of the affidavit that Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] has in all handed over 314 files containing the applications and other related documents, which are subject matter of WP No 23475 of 2010 and connected matters, to the secretariat of the committee constituted by the government as per the directions issued by this court in the said writ petitions and with this the third accused has complied with the direction Nos. (iii) and (iv) of the directions contained in the order dated 25-8-2012. On behalf of first accused, learned government advocate had already placed an affidavit sworn to by the first accused reporting compliance.

In the wake of the contents of the affidavits, while the accused persons have complied with the directions issued as per the order dated 25-8-2012, Sri Vasudev, the complainant, who is appearing in person and who was petitioner in WP No. 23475 of 2010, submits that it is not known as to whether the records handed over by the BDA to the secretariat of the committee also includes the personal letters that had been written by the aspirants of sites to the then chief ministers and which the petitioner-complainant had annexed to the writ petition and that has to be clarified etc., and whether it has been placed before the committee is also not very definite.

It is not necessary for this court to go into this aspect of the matter in this contempt petition, as the committee, which is a high power committee constituted as per the directions issued by this court, the committee is the only competent authority to call for any relevant records which are not already placed before it by BDA, but that does not mean the accused persons, if have not placed relevant records in terms of their affidavits, can escape the consequences for either filing false affidavit before this court or for misleading this court. Subject to above observation, this contempt petition is closed.