AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This contempt petition is in the second round of contempt proceedings arising out of an order passed in the second round writ litigation in the sense that the second round of the order parsed by this court, was in a review petition 254/2009 filed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Bangalore as per order dated 29.10.2009.
The first order in respect of which the contempt proceedings had been initiated before this Court in Writ Petition No.4195/2008 by the petitioners/allottees of sites in Yediyur Nagasandra Slum, Banashankari 2nd Stage, the grievance of the petitioners/allottees is that the Bangalore Development. Authority has not laid out necessary roads and protected civic amenity area, which has resulted in the following order of this Court on 24.06.2008 as under:
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, it is seen that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged encroachment by some strangers and by the violation of the interim order of status-quo granted in their favour, it is open for them to move the Civil Court and take appropriate action against the guilty. In so far as the request, for providing amenities is concerned, in the absence of details of allotments made in favour of the petitioners, the Bangalore Development Authority or for that, matter, other competent authorities may not be able to take any effective action. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA is right and justified in contending that unless the details of allotment are furnished to the BDA, the BDA cannot take appropriate action in the matter. Therefore, it has to be stated that petitioners will have to make a fresh representation before the Commissioner, BDA, producing the copies of the allotment letters and bringing to the notice of the BDA, the non-existence of basic amenities. Petitioners are given four weeks time to make such a representation enclosing the relevant particulars. If such representation is submitted within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the respondent -BDA shall examine the same in accordance with law and take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
It is thereafter several developments have taken place. In the first instance, the contempt petition in CCC No.110/2009(Civil) having been tiled by the very complainants and the present complaint being about the non-compliance of certain further direction said to have been issued as per the order dated 29.10.2009 passed in Review Petition No.254/2009, at the instance of the first accused in this contempt petition, the operative portion in that order reads as under:
In the above circumstances, the matter can be resolved by issuing a direction to the Secretary, Urban Development Department under whose supervision the three department viz., Bangalore Development Authority. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board Function, to ensure that the direction issued by this Court in WP No 4195/2008 is complied with expeditiously.
It is thereafter the present contempt petition complaining that still the authorities, particularly, the Officials of the Bangalore Development Authority as well the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike are inactive,having indulged in blaming one another and it has become inevitable to approach this Court again seeking the following reliefs;.
a) Call the accused before this Hon''ble Court and to initiate contempt proceedings by order passed in Review Petition No.254/2009 dated 29.10.2009 produced at Annexure-C as the accused authorities are not complied the direction issued by this Hon''ble Court and punish them in accordance with law.
b) Grant such other relief/s deems fit as the circumstances explained above including cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants, but do not find any need and scope for acting on this contempt petition as in the first instance, the origin of entire litigation was only based on certain representations etc. Even the first order was one which enabled the petitioners to give a representation for consideration of the same and not indicating any statutory basis for the same.
While this Court exercising writ jurisdiction particularly, in the exercise of judicial review of administrate action, undoubtedly has the power and jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs to public authorities in the event of there being a dereliction of duty in performing statutory functions by any statutory authority and such directions/writs will be issued only if it is demonstrated that there is a definite statutory violation or non-compliance and not otherwise, and unless the subject matter of the contempt petition reveals a development, which on the face of it demonstrates a clear disregard or violation of the Court order or a direction issued by the Court, that too of a positive definite direction contempt jurisdiction can be exercised but cannot be in respect of any and every observation, and when the order/direction is not precise or definite.
Exercise of jurisdiction in such contempt petitions in uncertain situation and in instances of orders which are not precise or specific will only bring down the efficacy and importance of the contempt jurisdiction and it will not be in the interest of the justice or for upholding the dignity and decorum of the Court for ensuring that, the Court orders and directions arc properly obeyed and complied with.
As we find in the present ease no such precise direction or orders had been issued and the first order is only to enable and pave way for further course of action, we do not propose to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of this court on the complaint in this petition, that there has been violation or disregard of court orders/directions by the accused.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main contempt petition, IA I/2011 filed for condonation of delay does not survive for consideration, accordingly, it is dismissed.