Saira Banu vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Rajesh Rai K, J

This contempt is initiated against the willful disobedience of the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13992/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge passed the order as under:

"The learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Issue emergent notice to respondent No.4 returnable by 14.06.2024.

In the meanwhile, the impugned orders dated 22nd February, 2024 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure A and dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure B are stayed subject to condition that the petitioner, her brother - Mr. Noor Mohammed and their other family members shall not harass or intimidate or cause any hardship to respondent No.4 in any manner.

Re-list on 17.08.2023."

The contention of the complainant is that her mother Smt.Fathima filed a false case before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru under the provisions of Senior Citizenship Act, 2007 for maintenance in Miscellaneous No.MAG(4)/MISC/SC/CR/38/22-23 and had obtained order to restore the possession of the complainant's mother Smt.Fathima over the property bearing No.66, situated at 4th Cross, N. Nagenahalli Village, Kothanur Post, Bengaluru. Against the said order, the complainant filed Writ Petition No.13992/2024 and on 28.05.2024, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order as stated supra.

Further, it is contended that, for implementation of the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge, she approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, both of them failed to implement the order. On the other hand, they put the mother of the complainant in possession of the property. Though the said aspect was brought to the knowledge of higher officers, none of them responded properly. Hence, she initiated this contempt petition.

On careful perusal of the materials on record including the counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA, it could be gathered that there is no such specific direction issued to the respondents by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.13992/2024. Further, according to learned AGA the said order was not communicated to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 28.05.2024. In the meantime, respondent Nos.2 and 3 implemented the Order passed in Miscellaneous No. MAG(4)MISC/SC/CR/38/2022-23 and made the complainant to vacate the premises vide mahazar drawn on 28.05.2024 between 5.00 to 6.00 Pm. The complainant has not placed any document to substantiate that the interim order was served/communicated to respondent Nos.2 and 3 before vacating the premises except her oral contention. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that, the contempt does not survive for further consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped.