Karnataka High Court
Sri Chetan vs Shri Ritish on 31 July, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar, G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7942-DB
CCC No.100168 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100168 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHETAN S/O. SIDDARAYAPPA GANIGI,
AGEED: 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O: H.NO.21, HANUMANNAVAR GALLI, ANGOL,
BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590002.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI.H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RITISH KUMAR SINGH,
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)
Digitally signed M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
by JAGADISH T R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. JAYASHREE SHINTRI,
Date: 2023.08.03
15:20:34 +0530
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RODDA ROAD,
DIET CAMPUS, DHARWAD-580008.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJ M. NALATWAD,
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (ADMN),
BELAGAVI, DISTRICT-590001.
...ACCUSED
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7942-DB
CCC No.100168 of 2023
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS
JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS
ACT AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT
FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2023 PASSED
IN W.P.NO.102878/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON' BLE COURT VIDE
ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article
215 of the Constitution of India arise out of the order
dated 06.01.2023 passed in W.P. No.102878/2021 by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant
and the learned Government Advocate for the accused.
3. A perusal of the said order passed by this Court
will indicate that reliance was placed on by the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7942-DB
CCC No.100168 of 2023
complainant-writ petitioner upon a judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of
Orissa and Others1. After considering the rival
contentions, this Court disposed of the said petition by
holding as under:
"Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 06.10.2020
passed in Application No.10462/2019 passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Belagavi vide Annexure-C is hereby quashed.
Respondents No.2-The Additional
Commissioner of Public Instructions, Dharwad and
respondent No.3-The Deputy Director of Public
Instruction (Admn), Belagavi District to consider
the representation, if freshly filed by the petitioner
urging various grounds, in addition to the grounds
which are already urged, the same shall be filed
within 15 days from he date of receipt of copy of
this order and also facilitating materials for
consideration for securing the appointment on
compassionate ground.
If the representation is filed afresh by
facilitating materials, the same shall be considered
Civil Appeal No.4103/2022 dated 20.05.2022.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7942-DB
CCC No.100168 of 2023
sympathetically keeping in view the ratio of
reliance rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
within two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Accordingly ordered.
In the meanwhile, registry is directed to
forward this copy of the order to the aforesaid
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to proceed in accordance
with law."
4. It is the grievance of the complainant-
petitioner that the aforesaid directions issued by this
Court have not been complied with by respondents No.2
and 3 and respondent No.3, who has issued endorsement
on 26.07.2023, does not have the jurisdiction or authority
of law to issue such endorsement which ought to have
been issued by respondent No.2. It is also submitted that,
though this Court specifically directed respondents No.2
and 3 to consider the representation of the complainant
bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy's case (supra), the
impugned endorsement dated 26.07.2023 does not even
refer to the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7942-DB
CCC No.100168 of 2023
the same is not mentioned in the compliance affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondents which vitiates the same.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate, on instructions, submit that accused No.2 and
3, who were respondents No.2 and 3 and are physically
present before this Court, would withdraw the aforesaid
endorsement dated 26.07.2023 and issue a fresh
endorsement in accordance with law within a reasonable
time. Said submission of the learned Government
Advocate is placed on record.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we
deem it just and appropriate to dispose of these contempt
proceedings directing respondents No.2 and 3 to withdraw
the endorsement dated 26.07.2023 and also pass
appropriate orders within a period of one month from
today bearing in mind the observations and directions
recorded in the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in W.P.
No.102878/2021 as well as the observations and findings
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7942-DB
CCC No.100168 of 2023
recorded in the present order. Accordingly, the present
contempt proceedings are disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application do not survive for
consideration and is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
