K. Srikanth Rao, The Commissioner, City Municipal Counsel vs Sri M.P. Sultan

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—The accused-Respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 24.6.2008. In the order passed by this Court on 24.6.2008, this Court directed the accused Respondent to hand over possession of the shop taken on lease by him within three months. Despite the aforesaid, possession was not handed over.

The order dated 24.6.2008 was assailed by the accused Respondent, by filing a writ appeal. The aforesaid writ appeal was also dismissed on 24.2.2008. Still possession remained with the accused-Respondent.

The instant contempt petition came to be filed at the hands of the Municipal Council, Madikeri on account of the disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. The accused Respondent has been identified by the learned Counsel representing him. He has handed over the key of the shop in question to the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri in Court today in token of handing over possession. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-Respondent that since possession has now been handed over, the order passed by this Court stands fully complied with.

Having examined the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the lapse at the hands of the accused-Respondent in not voluntarily obeying orders passed by this Court is very serious. As long as a contempt petition had not been filed at the hands of the Municipal Council, Madikeri, (so as to enforce the directions issued by this Court), possession of the leased shop was not handed over to the complainant-Petitioner. Orders of this Court need to be complied with unilaterally. The accused-Respondent and others similarly situate as him having not abided by this Courts orders (referred to above), consequently as many as 78 contempt petitions had to be filed by the complainant-Petitioner to enforce the directions issued by this Court. Besides resulting in unnecessary expense, this action of the accused-Respondent has resulted in unnecessary wastage of Court time. We, therefore, consider it just and appropriate to impose costs on the accused-Respondent. The accused-Respondent is accordingly directed to pay costs quantified as Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand). While paying the said costs, the accused-Respondent shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with the Karnataka State 3ar Council, Rs. 10,000/- with the Advocates Association. Bangalore, and the remaining Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand) with the complainant Municipal Council, Madikeri. Receipts thereof, shall be placed on the record within one month from today, failing which, the Registry is directed to re-list this case for motion hearing, so as to enforce payment of costs.

The instant contempt petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.