<p>The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued a show-cause notice initiating contempt proceedings against Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Dr E V Ramana Reddy, for wilful failure to take action against illegal construction.</p>.<p>Reddy has an additional charge of IT, BT and Science and Technology department.</p>.<p>A divisional bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Mohammed Nawaz was hearing a public interest petition filed by advocate S Umapathi.</p>.<p>The court expressed its unhappiness over non-compliance of its May 31 order for prescribing punishment for illegal construction under section 321(B) of KMC Act 1976.</p>.<p>The petitioner had sought implementation of Section 321(B) of the KMC Act, a penalty against the jurisdictional officer for failing to prevent unauthorised deviation or constructions.</p>.<p>The petitioner had prayed that “the jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorised deviation or constructions that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed”.</p>.<p>The additional government advocate had also submitted to the bench that under section 321 (B), punishment is required to be prescribed for the jurisdictional officer.</p>.<p>The high court had set a deadline to comply with the order. But as the government failed to comply with the order, it initiated contempt proceedings.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued a show-cause notice initiating contempt proceedings against Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Dr E V Ramana Reddy, for wilful failure to take action against illegal construction.</p>.<p>Reddy has an additional charge of IT, BT and Science and Technology department.</p>.<p>A divisional bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Mohammed Nawaz was hearing a public interest petition filed by advocate S Umapathi.</p>.<p>The court expressed its unhappiness over non-compliance of its May 31 order for prescribing punishment for illegal construction under section 321(B) of KMC Act 1976.</p>.<p>The petitioner had sought implementation of Section 321(B) of the KMC Act, a penalty against the jurisdictional officer for failing to prevent unauthorised deviation or constructions.</p>.<p>The petitioner had prayed that “the jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorised deviation or constructions that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed”.</p>.<p>The additional government advocate had also submitted to the bench that under section 321 (B), punishment is required to be prescribed for the jurisdictional officer.</p>.<p>The high court had set a deadline to comply with the order. But as the government failed to comply with the order, it initiated contempt proceedings.</p>