I IN THE IHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED ThIS THE 8”’ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT THE IION’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. SABHAHIT AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO * C.C.C. No. 2124/2010C/W Writ Appeal No.6294/2010 tcsI )C4f C) Between: *LaY ct 6 sacIe/ Sri.Mallappa 5/0 Gurushantappa Ramageri, Vt& ( Aged about 48 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Ji as oa ao(a Rio Mugali, Shiggaon Taluk- 581205, Haven District Complainant (by Sri. ltK. Hatti, Advocate) and Sri.Ashok Kurani, Branch Manager, KSFC, P.B.Road, Haveri-581 110, Haveri District - Accused This CCC No. 2124/2010 is filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, praying to punish the accused for disobeying the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.63742/2010 (GM.KSFC) dated 04.06.2010, vide Annexure-A. In Writ Appeal No.6294/2010 Between: Karnataka State Financial Corporation, P.B.Road, Haveri-581 110. Haven Dist represented by its Branch Manager, (Respondent in WP.No.63742/2010) - Appellant (by Sri.Veeresh R. Budihal, Advocate) and: Sri.Mallappa S/o Gurushanthappa Rarnageri, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Agriculture, Rio Mugali Village, Taluk:Shiggaon-58 1205. Haven District. (Petitioner in WP.No.63 742/2010) - Respondent (by Sri.R.K.Hatti, Advocate) This writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 04.06.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.63742/2010 in so far as it relates to the direction to consider the request of the respondent herein and further to dismiss the said writ petition. These cases coming for preliminary hearing on this day, V.G. Sabhahit. J, delivered the following judgment. Judgment I. There is a delay of 16 days in filing the writ appeal and an application, i.e., Misc. W. No. 6 1957/2010 is filed for condoning the said delay. In view of the averments made in the application we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly Misc. W. No. 61957/20 10 is allowed. 2. Writ Appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, i.e., respondent in W.P. No. 63742/2010, being aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2010 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondent to consider the application given by the writ petitioner to give no objection to lease the schedule premises in favour of the L.LC., Branch at Shiggaon and directed that a tripartite agreement shall be entered into between the petitioner, respondent and the L.1.C. Further, learned Single Judge held that the respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner and shall not 4 precipitate the notice dated 12.05.2010 and accordingly disposed of the writ petition. 3. The appellant has contended that no direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge to enter into a tripartite agreement when L.T.C. is not a party in the said writ petition. Further, L.I.C. has already shifted its office to another premises and therefore the question of leasing the schedule premises in favour of the L.I.C. by the respondent does not arise and therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner submits that though L.I.C., Branch at Shiggaon has now been housed in some other premises, the application given by the respondent for issuing no objection certificate for leasing the premises may be considered by the K.S.F.C. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that such application which is filed for issuing no objection certificate to lease 5 the premises will be strictly in accordance with law and be considered before taking further steps u/S 29 ofthe State Finance Corpn. Act 6. C.C.C. No. 2124/2010 is filed by the writ petitioner for willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 63742/2010, out ofwhich W.A. No. 6294/2010 arises. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record. ft is clear from the materials on record that the subject matter of the Writ Petition was the application filed by the respondent-writ petitioner seeking for no objection to lease the schedule premises in favour ofthe L.I.C. to establish Branch Office at Shiggaon. The said subject has become infructuous as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that L.I.C. has already housed its office in another premises at Shiggaon and branch office is already started. Therefore the question of entering into a tripartite agreement between the appellant-respondent and the L.I.C. does not arise and to 6 that extent the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be modified. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-K.S.F.C. submitted that the application given by the respondent-writ petitioner for issuing no objection certificate to lease the premises is strictly in accordance with law and before taking any further action u/S 29 ofthe Act would sufficiently safeguard the interest of the respondent. In view of the above said order question of complying with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge does not arise. Accordingly W.A. No. 6294/2010 and C.C.C. No. 2124/2010 are disposed of with the above said observations. sal Sd! bvv