NICE's application for impleading in contempt petition rejected

Bangalore, Apr 5 (UNI) The Karnataka High Court today rejected the application filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises and Nandi Economic Corridor for impleading themselves as parties to a contempt of court petition.

Mr Justice Gopala Gowda and Mr Justice Billappa rejected the application for impleading in the contempt petition, filed by one H V Vijayaraghavan and others seeking initiation of action against the Karnataka Chief Secretary, the KIADB Executive Director, the KIADB Special DC, the Special LAO and the Commerce and Industries Principal Secretary. The action was sought for non-compliance of a High Court order on a writ petition filed by Mr Vijayaraghavan, challenging the KIADB notifications to acquire their lands measuring about 13 acres at Gottigere village in Bangalore South taluk for providing peripheral ring road around the Gottigere tank bund for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project.

The complainants contended that they had constructed houses on the land based on the assurance given by the Apl.LAO that the land would not be acquired for the project since that CDP and the observations of the court in a public interest litigation held that the peripheral road should be constructed by providing a overpass.

The High Court had directed the KIADB and others to consider further objections permitted to be filed by the petitioner within three weeks and pass orders as per law. The contempt petition was filed alleging that no order of compliance was passed by the respondents.

NICE and NECE had filed the application for impleading on the strength of an order passed by the Supreme Court, permitting them to come on record in another contempt petition filed in respect of the order passed by the High Court in the public interest litigation.

Considering the contentions of both parties, the Bench said no direction had been issued against the proposed parties in the order under the contempt of court petition and further they were not parties to the original writ proceedings. No allegations were made against the proposed parties in the contempt petition and therefore they were not proper parties.

The court consequently rejected another application filed by the same parties, seeking recall of an earlier order. The court also rejected another application filed by one of the respondents, seeking to drop contempt proceedings against him, observing that the court had been subjectively satisfied that there was wilful disobedience of the High Court order. The matter was posted to April 18 for framing of charges.

UNI