The Hindu : Karnataka News : High Court frames charges against Jerome

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 16, 2004

Karnataka

Karnataka

High Court frames charges against Jerome

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE, APRIL 15. The Karnataka High Court on Thursday framed two charges of contempt of court against the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Jayakar Jerome. A Division Bench comprising Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Hulavadi G. Ramesh framed the charges on a contempt petition by ING Vysya Bank. The bank said it purchased on March 31, 1995, a building and a site in Jayanagar 5th Block belonging to S. Narasimha Murthy. Mr. Murthy had built a house on Plot No. 527A and developed a garden on the adjoining Plot No. 527B. He got the sale deeds of the plots registered in his name on December 21, 1989, and December 25, 1989. He had taken a loan from a nationalised bank by pledging the two plots. In 1995, ING Vysya Bank purchased both the plots as it wanted to convert them into an official residence for its Chairman and Managing Director (CMD). Plot No. 527A was bought for Rs. 72 lakh and Plot No. 527B for Rs. 48 lakh (total Rs. 1.2 crore).

The mortgage on the house and plot was redeemed and the CMD of ING Vysya Bank began staying on the premises. In 2002, Mr. Jerome telephoned the CMD and told him that the building was illegal and that Mr. Murthy had fabricated documents to show that he had been allotted the site. He reportedly threatened to demolish the building if it was not vacated.

The bank approached the High Court. In its petition, it said that the BDA did not serve any notice on it. Besides, there was no court order to demolish the building. The High Court dismissed the petition on October 28, 2002 and directed the BDA not to demolish the building for four weeks. It observed that the petition could be contested as a civil suit.

The bank then filed a civil suit in a city court on November 16, 2002. When the matter came up for hearing, the BDA advocate submitted that nothing would be done to the property till November 25, 2002 midnight.

However, the BDA began demolishing the building early on November 25. Incidentally, the city court had fixed the hearing of the case for the morning of November 25 morning. When the bank appealed to the High Court, it ordered that the building should not be demolished if it had not been already. In its contempt petition, the bank said the BDA had violated the court's directions. Besides, it had carried out the demolition after giving an undertaking to the court. The Division Bench observed: "The circumstances in which the writ petition was filed by ING Vysya Bank, the order that the single judge passed in this writ petition, the institution of proceedings in the city court, the circumstances in which the application for grant of injunction filed by the plaintiff in the said suit was adjourned to November 25, 2002 and above all the circumstances in which the building purchased by the complainant for valuable consideration in terms of registered sale instruments in its favour was demolished in what was an unearthly haste arising, in our opinion, out of a misplaced exuberance of Mr. Jerome to carry out the demolition under his own supervision in the wee hours of the day, prima facie make out a case for framing of charge against him."

It further said the action of Mr. Jerome was prima facie violation of the High Court order of October 28, 2002 and that it was punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.

The Bench said: "The fact that the respondent had taken appropriate steps for the removal of unauthorised occupants and demolition of illegal structures raised over BDA properties in a large number of cases is laudable, but then neither the BDA nor the Commissioner does any favour to anyone by scrupulously protecting the property belonging to the authority. The process of removal of unauthorised occupants is said to have started only from 2000 onwards. One could well ask the respondent (Commissioner) as to why the authority and its functionaries had allowed such valuable and extensive properties as are mentioned in the list enclosed in the additional affidavit to be occupied by people and why no action for either preventing such occupation or for removal of the same was taken till 2000."

It said: "Not only should the illegal encroachments be prevented and properly recovered from unauthorised occupants, but they should be in accordance with the procedures established by law. The good work done by the authority or its officers in any number of cases cannot justify a single violation of an order passed by a competent court."The court sad Mr. Jerome's action was also tantamount to contempt of the subordinate court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Karnataka