Karnataka High Court
CCC/44/2025 of SRI.K.S.SURESH Vs SRI.TUSHAR GIRINATH on 16 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010019222025 NC: 2026:KHC:50377-DB CCC No.44 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.44 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.44 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI.K.S.SURESH,
S/O LATE.K.C.SHANKARSHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.56,
SRINIVASA MANDIRA ROAD,
BALEPET ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053.
2.
G.R.GOPINATH,
S/O LATE.G.REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.46/2,
BINNY MILL ROAD,
COTTONPET CROSS,
BANGALORE-560 053.
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SMT.SUMA.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI.TUSHAR GIRINATH,
THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2.
SRI.VISHWANATH,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
GOODSHED ROAD,
Digitally
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
BANGALORE-560 009.
3.
SRI.RAJKUMAR,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (WEST),
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BASYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 020.
4.
SANKALPA ASSOCIATES,
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
HITESH KUMAR JAIN,
PROPERTY NO.8, WARD NO.95,
RAILWAY COMPOUND, MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 021.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI B.S.KARTHIKEYAN ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3; A4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO
PUNISH ACCUSED NOs.1 TO 4 FOR WILLFUL DISOBEYING OF THE
ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THIS COURT
IN W.P.NO.26368/2023 (LB-BMP).
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26368/2023. In the aforesaid order, learned Single
HC-KAR
Judge has observed that respondent No.4 therein/accused No.4 was putting up additional floors in deviation of the sanctioned plan and BBMP had also issued confirmation orders with respondent No.4 availing appellate remedy against such order. The observations of the Court are as follows: “4. The petitioners' locus would be put into serious jeopardy, but for the purpose of the present disposal, this Court must observe that the fourth respondent is putting up additional floors in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and the BBMP has also issued Confirmation Orders with the fourth respondent availing appellate remedy as against such order. The questions such as, whether the fourth respondent can apply for a modified plan and if the fourth respondent can apply for such modification plan pending consideration thereof, should the fourth respondent be permitted to use these additional constructions, are all the aspects that will have to be considered by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP.
5. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the fourth respondent to file all applications, including the application that is now proposed as recorded by this Court with the Chief Commissioner, BBMP in its appeal against the Confirmation Order. This Court, however, must direct the fourth respondent, unless there is a specific order by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, not to put such additional floors to any use. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.”
3. An affidavit of compliance has been filed by K.Shanthala, the Assistant Executive Engineer in Bangalore Central City Corporation-GBA, wherein, it is stated that the
HC-KAR
additional floors have been sealed as per directions of this Court and the Chief Commissioner has not issued any order to de-seal the additional floors. An unconditional apology has also been proffered for delay, if any caused in compliance with the order passed by this Court.
4. The compliance affidavit is accepted and this contempt petition is consigned leaving it open to the complainant to seek revival of this petition, in case there is violation of the order of the Court.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE
KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8