Timely intervention by an advocate representing the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) on Monday saved Commissioner B.H. Anil Kumar from facing criminal proceedings for ‘defying’ orders of the Karnataka High Court, which had repeatedly directed him to publicise a ruling that citizens are entitled to seek compensation from the civic body for loss or damage owing to poor condition of roads or footpaths.
“...in the event of giving a wide publicity that the BBMP would provide a reasonable compensations in so far as mishaps caused because of potholes, then such a situation would lead to opening of Pandora’s Box. However, in genuine cases, there is always practice of payment of reasonable compensation, but in accordance with law,” Mr. Anil Kumar had stated in his compliance report, dated October 19, submitted in response to the court’s directions for giving publicity to citizens’ right to seek compensation by filling a representation to the BBMP.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar described this statement of the Commissioner as a ‘clear defiance of court’s orders’ warranting initiation of criminal proceedings for contempt of court.
“The Commissioner is not an ordinary litigant. The statement does not appear to be prepared as per legal advice, as it is specifically signed by the Commissioner himself,” the bench observed orally.
In paragraph 12 of the compliance report, the Commissioner wants to ‘defy’ the court’s directions, the bench observed in its order making it clear that its order for payment of compensation was not for each and every case of road accident but only in those instances caused due to bad roads and footpaths. The BBMP can always reject claims if it was not satisfied with the claims.
Pointing out that it had asked the BBMP to inform citizens that they can give representation to the civic body seeking compensation as citizens need not directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the bench said in its order that if the BBMP was aggrieved by this order, then it should have challenged it as per the law.
At this stage, BBMP counsel K.N. Putte Gowda sought the court’s permission to withdraw the statement of the Commissioner.
Recording this submission by the counsel, the bench said that it is not initiating any action against the Commissioner for ‘defying’ courts orders only for the reason that his counsel pleaded to withdraw the statement.
While observing that it was not a case of the BBMP, which itself had admitted poor condition of several hundred kilomtres of roads in the city, that the situation has improved now, the bench said that its orders were only to ensure that the civic body discharged its statutory obligation of keeping the city’s roads in reasonably good condition.
The court gave time till November 8 for the Commissioner to file a fresh compliance report.
