Karnataka High Court
Sri Channabasappa vs Sri Rajendra Cholan on 24 October, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42975-DB
CCC No. 572 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 572 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O LATE HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT SIDDAMANAHALLI
BANGARAKKANAGUDDA
KUCHVANVANAHALLI POST
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN: 577 528.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SMT. ANITHA PANDE AND
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V SRI. RAVI SHANKAR K, ADVOCATES)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. RAJENDRA CHOLAN
MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
(BESCOM)
K.R CIRCLE
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. SMT. LAKSHMI
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
COMMERCE & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
C.O & M DIVISION, BESCOM
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42975-DB
CCC No. 572 of 2022
DAVANAGERE EAST DIVISION
DAVANAGERE
PIN: 577 002.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. RANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR A1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 PETITION AGAINST
A2 IS ABATED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE
APPROPRIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED PERSONS AND PUNISH FOR HAVING WILFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WP NO.54003/2017 DATED 23.04.2019.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceeding is initiated under Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of
the Constitution of India for wilful disobedience of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.54003/2017
dated 23.04.2019.
2. Learned counsel, namely Sri Ravi Shankar K., for
the complainant, is on record but represented by learned
NC: 2024:KHC:42975-DB
counsel namely, Smt. Anitha Pande, who is present before this
Court physically.
3. Learned Senior counsel, Sri Ranga, for accused
Nos.1 and 2 is present before the Court physically and
represents Smt. Sumana Nagananda, who is on record. He
has filed a memo reporting death of accused No.2. The same is
taken on record. Keeping in view Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C., the
contempt proceeding against accused No.2 is hereby abated.
4. Learned Senior counsel for accused No.1 in this
matter submits that on 13.09.2022, he has filed detailed
affidavit along with annexures in compliance of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ
petition. The affidavit consists in all paragraphs 1 to 10.
5. In paragraph 9 of the detailed affidavit, it is stated
that in view of the order passed by concerned Court in Review
Petition No.277/2019 with which order dated 23.04.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in
W.P.No.54003/2017 has merged and in view of the subsequent
decisions, the present contempt petition is not maintainable.
The same has been pressed into service by the learned Senior
NC: 2024:KHC:42975-DB
counsel for accused No.1 in this matter to consider the reasons
stated detailed in the affidavit.
6. Learned Senior counsel for accused No.1 further
submits that there is delay in initiation of the contempt
proceeding.
7. Keeping in view the submission made by learned
counsel for accused No.1, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act' for short), which reads as under:
20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-- No court
shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or
otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
8. Keeping in view the provision of Section 20 of the
Act, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah
and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in
paragraphs 52 and 53 observed as under:
52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court's
power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is
discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where
disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may
NC: 2024:KHC:42975-DB
also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an
order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to
enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart,
refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much
would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature
of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to
exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona
fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his
disability to comply with the court's direction to its notice without
wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands
in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that
nothing impedes the course of justice.
53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition
disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the
petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the
Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the
date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning
thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should
be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the
proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high
court.
9. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Act
and so also, the reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated
supra and the detailed affidavit which has been submitted by
the accused No.1, are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to
state that there is no substance to consider this contempt
NC: 2024:KHC:42975-DB
petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this contempt
proceeding is hereby dropped.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY
