IN THE [lION COURT OF KARNATA1A CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF AUGUST. 2011 PR E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.0. SABHAHIT A N D THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR N9J2i1CII Be t wee n: Javant S/o. Rarnchandra Kittur, Age: 39 years, 0cc: Business, R/o. Swami Vivekanand Nagar, 31 Cross, Congress Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaurn, Tq & Dist: Belga urn. - Complainant (By Sri.FV.Patil, Advocate) And: 1. S.U.Patil, The Commissioner, Belgaurn City Muncipal Corporation, Tq & Dist: Belgaum. 2. Devendra Halag i, The City Engineer attached to South Division Belgaum City Corporation, Tq & Dist: Belgaum. 3. G.S.Patil. The Assistant Commissioner, Attached to South Division, Belgaum City Corporation, Tci & Dist: Belgaum. - Respondents/ccuscd This CCC is filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act R / W Article 2 1 5 of Constitution of India. -2- praying to punish the accused No.1 to 3 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for having willfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in review petition No.465/2002 in W.P.No.37516/ 2000 vide Annexure-H dated 23/09/2002. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, V.G.SABHAHIT.J, made the following: ORDER 1. This petition is filed complaining wilful disobedience to the directions issued by this Court in Review Petition No. 465/2002 in W.P. No. 37516/2000 dated 23.09.2002 filed by the respondent, this Court observed that the Court was not aware as to whether any opportunity was given, observed as follows: S “4. May be the order passed would be bad in law since the legal representatives of the writ petitioners were not brought on record. The proceedings continued even after the death of the writ petitioners and came to be disposed of without there being any legal representatives on record for the writ petitioners. In the order in question no finding has been given by this Court regarding the encroachment of the road or otherwise. Only an observation was made that the Corporation Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the matter. By the impugned order, no direction as such is given to the Corporation to effect the demolition. It is incumbent upon the Corporation to hold an enquiry and give a fair opportunity to the review petitioners before final orders •are passed. 5. I do not know whether the Corporation has given any opportunity before the demolition of them disputed structures are undertaken. If at all there is any illegality in the orders of demolition, the review petitioners are at -3- liberty to file appropriate in dependent proceedings challenging the action of the Corporation. By filing this review, it will not serve any useful purpose to the writ petitioners. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.” 2. It is the contention of the complainant that without holding an enquiry as observed by this Court. the property has been demolished on 01.07.2011. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Learned counsel reiterated the averments made in the petition and submitted that though the order was passed in the year 2002. cause of action arose on 01.07.2011 and hence the petition is maintainable. 4. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 5. It is clear from the observation made by this Court that there is no direction as such issued. In fact the review petition was filed by the complainant herein and the first respondent herein was the respondent no. 4 in the review petition. It is clearly observed in paragraph no. 5 that if there is an order of demolition or any illegality in the order of demolition. the 4 same can he challenged in appropriate independent proceedings. 6. 1 earned counsel appearing for the complainant suhniitted that the ha\e a1read filed \\ P No, 64657 2011 challenging the order of demolition and the said xrit petition is alredd\ alloed. Accordingly e hold that there is no ground to initiate contempt pioceedings against the proceedings under Article 11 and 12 of the Contempt of’ Court \ct r v 1\rticle 215 of Constitution of India, hence xe proceed to pass the follo ing order. 0 RI) ER (ontempt petition is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of the petition ould not preclude the complainant to pursue his remcd\ in accordance ith la\\. Sd/ JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE