Why action for contempt of court should not be initiated, HC asks BBMP Commissioner

This case is about illegal religious structures in public places

February 04, 2020 11:05 pm | Updated February 05, 2020 08:09 am IST - Bengaluru

BANGALORE, 11/12/2007: A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore.
Photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy 11-12-2007

BANGALORE, 11/12/2007: A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore. Photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy 11-12-2007

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday ordered issue of notice to Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Commissioner B.H. Anil Kumar to show cause why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him for disobeying its directions on enforcing the apex court’s September 9, 2009 order to act against illegal religious structures in public places.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar issued the direction while hearing a PIL petition, initiated suo motu by the High Court on the actions of the State government and its authorities for removing illegal religious structures as per the apex court’s orders.

During the hearing, the bench noticed that the BBMP Commissioner had not only failed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court to properly enforce the apex court’s directions but had also failed to provide the details sought by the High Court on illegal religious structures.

Though the apex court had said that no illegal structure should be allowed in public places after September 29, 2009, the status report filed by the Commissioner was vague as the charts about illegal religious structures did not specify whether they were built prior to or after September 29, 2009.

At one point, the bench even asked the government counsel what action the government would take against the Commissioner as “he is unable to understand the court’s orders”.

Later, the court directed the government to issue specific directions to the BBMP Commissioner on the matter of the apex court’s 2009 directions.

While making it clear that the Commissioner need not personally appear in cCourt on March 4, the next date of hearing, the bench said that the Commissioner should specifically state that what is the role assigned to members of the legal cell of the BBMP and to state whether any member of the legal cell was specifically assigned to the issue about illegal religious structures.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.