Karnataka High Court
Sri. N V Dinesh Kumar vs Sri S R Umashankar on 28 October, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43431-DB
CCC No. 513 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH 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. 513 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. N.V DINESH KUMAR
S/O LATE N.C. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
SRI. BAGURU GANGAMMA PRE-UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, RAMAGIRI, HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAIAH L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V
Location: HIGH 1. SRI. S. R. UMASHANKAR
COURT OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, M.S BUILDING
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. SNEHAL,
DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF
PRE -UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 012.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43431-DB
CCC No. 513 of 2020
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALORE- 560 001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11, 12 AND 14 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/R ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND
PUNISH THEM ACCORDING TO LAW FOR THEIR DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE AND DISHONEST AND WILLFUL DEFIANCE OF
THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2012 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN
W.P.NO.32152/2011 (S-RES).
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)
Learned counsel Sri Siddaiah L., for the complainant so
also learned AAG Sri Reuben Jacob along with Sri Devaraj C.H,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 are present before the Court
physically.
2. This contempt proceedings has been initiated by the
complainant against the respondents for willful disobedience of
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
NC: 2024:KHC:43431-DB
W.P.No.32152/2011(S-RES) dated 17.02.2012 vide
Annexure-'A'. In Paragraph No.6 of this contempt proceedings,
it is stated that, 'Act No.7/2014 has been brought into force
with retrospective effect from 01.06.1995, much later than the
date of initial appointment of the complainant (01-06-1992),
the said Act will not apply to the case of the complainant in the
instant case besides the fact that the said Act No.7/2014 was
struck down as ultra virus of Constitution of India etc. by an
order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.14307-14361/2014 and several other connected writ
petition'.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that
the Act No.7/2014 is not at all applicable to the party to the
contempt proceedings.
4. Whereas, learned AAG Sri Reuben Jacob for the
respondent/State refers the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2476/2015 dated 12.11.2021,
which reads thus:
"Since the Bench is examining the
validity of the Amendment to the Act
No.87/1893, the Government and its
NC: 2024:KHC:43431-DB
Officers need not be under the impression
that the contempt proceedings initiated by
the respondent-employees or others shall
be precipitated by the other Bench. It is
open for the learned Advocate General and
learned Additional Advocate General to
place copy of this order before the contempt
Bench and bring it to the notice the request
of this Court to halt the said contempt
proceedings till these proceedings are
decided".
5. However, the aforesaid appeal is pending for
consideration. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate that, at this
stage, there is no need arises to address the detailed issues in
between the complainant and respondents.
6. In this contempt proceedings, I.A.No.1/2020 has
been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
condonation of delay of 1861 days in initiating this contempt
proceedings. Keeping in view the submission made by the
learned counsel for the complainant and even keeping in view
the grounds urged in the contempt proceedings, it is pertinent
to refer Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The same
reads as under:
"20. Limitation for actions for
contempt.--No court shall initiate any
proceedings of contempt, either on its own
NC: 2024:KHC:43431-DB
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".
7. It is also appropriate to refer the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1764 held in Paragraph No.53, which reads as
under:
"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".
8. However, keeping in view the observation made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraph stated supra
and also keeping in view the issues emerged in between the
complainant and the respondents are concerned, it is deemed
appropriate to state that, for the present, this contempt
NC: 2024:KHC:43431-DB
proceedings does not arise for consideration to initiate action
against the respondents/State.
9. Accordingly, this contempt proceedings is hereby
dropped.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2020 shall also stand disposed of.
However, learned counsel for the complainant is
permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
