Sri H K Satish v. Smt. Nagarathna S L

NC:(2026:KHC:12395-DB( CCC(No.(324(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

THDATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI H K SATISH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SON OF KITTAPPA GOWDA,

RESIDING AT LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, VIJAYANAGAR,

1ST CROSS, CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.

Digitally …COMPLAINANT signedtiby (BY SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) NIRMALA DEVI AND: Location: HIGH0COURT OF 1. SMT. NAGARATHNA S L KARNATAKA THE COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 1ST STAGE HIREMAGALURU, KADURU BY-PASSROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.

NC:(2026:KHC:12395-DB( CCC(No.(324(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

¶2B C BASAVARAJU, THE COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY MUNICIPALITY VIJAYNAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU

…ACCUSED (BY SRI. AKSHAY P V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVISHANKAR A, ADVOCATE FOR A1 SMT. JYOTI Y KATAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR A2)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2022 PASSED IN W.P.NO.5658/2021.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.5658/2021 [LB-RES].

The relevant extract of the operative portion of the order reads as under:

"Petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 with regard to issue concerning single site development plan on 15.12.2022 at 3 P.M., on such appearance, respondent No.3 shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner providing him sufficient opportunity to respond to the same. Thereafter on petitioner furnishing response within the time to be stipulated, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and issue endorsement/orders as the case may be.

As regards suspension or temporary cancellation of khatha and building plan, petitioner shall appear before respondent No.4 on 16.12.2022 at 3 P.M., on such appearance, respondent No.4 shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner providing him sufficient opportunity to respond to the same. Thereafter on petitioner furnishing response within the time to be stipulated, the respondent No.4 shall consider the same in accordance with law and issue endorsement/orders as the case may be. All contentions of the parties are left open."

¶2The complainant had appeared before the concerned authority on 16.12.2022, as directed. The complainant had also submitted some documents and thereafter was also called upon to personally visit the office on 27.11.2023 and submit the entire documents. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that on

27.11.2023, the complainant had visited the office and had

furnished documents. The accused submit that in the aforesaid view, the order has been complied with.

¶3Learned counsel for the accused submits that although the complainant was called upon to appear and submit the documents, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing.

¶4The record produced along with the complaint indicates that communication dated

16.11.2023 was issued by the Chikkamagaluru Development Authority. The petitioner/complainant was informed that he has only submitted a single site approval copy and plan, and was requested to submit the entire documents through advocate by personally visiting the office on 27.11.2023. The letter dated 27.11.2023 which is addressed by the complainant indicates that the complainant had furnished several documents which are referred to in the said order. The accused has furnished an endorsement dated

26.09.2025 (wrongly mentioned the date of endorsement as

19.09.2025 in English translation copy) .

¶5In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are required

to be initiated against the accused. The complaint is closed. We however, clarify that this order will not preclude the complainant from availing any further remedies otherwise available in law.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27