Karnataka High Court
Sharanbasappa Ambanna vs Rajkumar Nagreddy And Anr on 23 October, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
CCC No. 200155 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200155 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHARANBASAPPA AMBANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YRS, OCC: AGRI & MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TAJ SULTANPUR
R/O SYED CHINCHOLI,
TQ AND DIST: KALABURAGI - 585307.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. D P AMBEKAR, ADV.)
Digitally signed AND:
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
1. RAJKUMAR NAGREDDY
COURT OF THE RETURNING OFFICER TAJ SULTANPUR GRAM
KARNATAKA
PANCHAYAT,
TQ: AND DIST: KALABURAGI CUM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
AKSHARA DASOHA YOJANE, TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
KALABURAGI - 585102.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION BAZAR ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585102.
...ACCUSEDS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, PGA FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
CCC No. 200155 of 2023
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED U/S. 11 & 12
OF CONTEMPT COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE THE STRICTEST
ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO 1 FOR CONTEMPT OF THE
FINAL ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 IN WP NO.202293/2023 AT
ANNEXURE - D AND FURTHER ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF THE
SAID ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 IN WP NO.202293/2023 AT
ANNEXURE - D BY THE ACCUSED NO.1.
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
1. This contempt petition arises out of directions issued
by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.202293/2023. The
complainant herein was the writ petitioner who had
approached the learned Single Judge assailing the meeting
Notice dated 04.08.2023 while seeking directions to the
Returning Officer to issue fresh calendar of election to the
posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Taj Sultanpur
Gram Panchayat. Having regard to the judgment of Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shoba P. and
Others Vs Mohini and Others reported in (2015) 8 Kar
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
CK 0198 in W.A.No.2184-2205/2015, the learned
Single Judge directed the Returning Officer to conduct
election by fixing the next date taking into consideration
the rules provided therein.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, despite
such specific direction that the Returning Officer should
conduct the election by fixing the next date taking into
consideration the rules and law declared by the
Co-ordinate Bench, the Returning Officer again committed
a mistake in accepting the nomination papers from one
candidate each for the posts of Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha when there was admittedly no quorum.
Further, on the date fixed for election namely 04.09.2023,
the Returning Officer did not hold the election. On the
other hand, another date was fixed on 22.09.2023 and the
Returning Officer simply proceeded to accept the
nomination papers at the hands of two individuals for the
two posts which were filed on 04.08.2023 and declared
the results on 22.09.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
3. On the other hand, the Returning Officer had filed an
affidavit earlier before this Court on 08.12.2023 stating
that on 04.09.2023, though the date was fixed for holding
the elections in terms of directions issued by the learned
Single Judge, nevertheless, the election process was
disrupted by the members of the Gram Panchayat and
therefore, he was not able to hold the elections on
04.09.2023. He, therefore, requested the Deputy
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner issued a
Show Cause Notice and thereafter, directed the Returning
Officer to hold election by fixing another date.
Accordingly, on 22.09.2023, the elections were scheduled
and accordingly on 22.09.2023, the Returning Officer
declared the results of the elections.
4. Having regard to the facts narrated herein above,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the Returning
Officer has placed on record all the relevant information
and has stated clearly that on 04.09.2023 he could not
hold the elections because the elections were disrupted by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
the conduct of the members of the Gram Panchayat.
Therefore, another date was fixed and on that date the
results were declared based on the nomination papers filed
by two individuals on 04.08.2023. The question therefore
is whether, this would amount to willful disobedience of
the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Having
regard to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge
where it was directed that the Returning Officer shall fix
the next date and proceed to conduct the elections, we do
not find specific directions as to how the Returning Officer
was required to proceed. If the learned Single Judge was
of the opinion that acceptance of the nomination papers
which were filed on 04.08.2023 was not in accordance
with law, then the acceptance of the nomination papers
should have been set aside. Without doing so, when
directions were issued to the Returning Officer to fix next
date of election and proceed accordingly, we do not find
any reason to accept the contention of the complainant
herein that there is willful disobedience of the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
5. In Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Another Vs Tarak
Nath Ganguly & Others 2002 (5) SCC 352, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that if the judgment or order does
not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if
there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then
it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court
which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order
instead of the Court exercising the contempt jurisdiction
taking upon itself the power to decide the original
proceeding in a matter not dealt by the court passing the
judgment or order. In that view of the matter, we are of
the considered opinion that the contention of the
complainant herein that there is willful disobedience at the
hands of the Returning Officer, cannot be accepted. The
Complainant should have sought for a clarification at the
hands of the learned Single Judge or he should have filed
a fresh writ petition since there is a fresh cause of action
for the complainant to challenge the action of the
Returning Officer.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7782-DB
6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the
considered opinion that there is no willful disobedience on
the part of the respondent - Returning Officer. Therefore,
the contempt petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
CT: PS
