Karnataka High Court
Sri. S K Ramalingaiah vs Dr. Vishal R Ias on 4 September, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36097-DB
CCC No. 812 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. S K RAMALINGAIAH
S/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
HEAD MASTER (RETIRED)
SIDDARTHA VIDYA SAMSTHE
HIGH SCHOOL, 3RD CROSS
VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
R/AT SADHOLALU VILLAGE AND POST
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
...COMPLAINANT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. NAGENDRA - ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JANARDHANA G -
SUMATHY ADVOCATE)
KANNAN
AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. DR. VISHAL R, IAS
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NURPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
BENGALURU-560001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. S R KHAMROZ KHAN - AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36097-DB
CCC No. 812 of 2021
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE
OF THE OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED FOR
DISOBEYING THE ORDERS DATED 27.07.2015 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.2993/2015 UNDER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
Learned counsel Sri Nagendra for the complainant is
present before the Court physically and represents Sri
Janardhan G who is on record inclusive of learned AGA Sri
S.R.Khamroz Khan for respondents/accused.
2. Sri. Krishnaji S.Karichannavara, Director of Public
Instruction, Secondary Education is present before the
Court physically.
3. This contempt proceeding is initiated against
respondents / accused for disobedience of the order
passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.4326-4356/2015 and connected petitions dated
NC: 2024:KHC:36097-DB
27.07.2015 vide Annexure-A. W.P.No.2993/2015 pertains
to the complainant herein. While allowing the writ
petitions, the Karnataka Private Aided Educational
Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and
other Benefits) Act, 2014 (Karnataka Act No.07/2014) was
struck down as ultravires of Constitution of India as
opposed to Article 14 of Constitution of India and also
encroaches upon the judicial powers of the Courts.
Further, the Respondent - State was directed to continue
to pay salary or pension as the case may be, to petitioners
and similarly placed persons as was being paid pursuant to
earlier orders or in other words, as it was being paid prior
to impugned enactment.
4. The said order was challenged before the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2467/2015 and 197
connected matters and the same is pending consideration.
5. Whereas in this contempt petition, I.A.1/2021 is
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the
delay of 1281 days in this contempt petition. In this
NC: 2024:KHC:36097-DB
context, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt
of Courts Act which indicates "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."
6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupathi
Rao vs. M.Lingamaiah and others reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 1764 has observed as under:
The Act for the first time, by enacting Section 20,
introduced a period of limitation. The Sanyal Committee
examined the question as to whether any period of limitation
should be prescribed in respect of contempt proceedings and
observed in paragraph 8 of Chapter X of its Report, as under
'8. Limitation:-- Contempt procedures are of a summary
nature and promptness is the essence of such proceedings. Any
delay should be fatal to such proceedings, though there may be
exceptional cases when the delay may have to be over looked
but such cases should be very rare indeed. From this point of
view we considered whether it is either necessary or desirable
to specify a period of limitation in respect of contempt
proceedings. The period, if it is to be fixed by statute, will
necessarily have to be very short and provision may also have
to be made for condoning delay in suitable cases. We feel that
NC: 2024:KHC:36097-DB
on the whole instead of making any hard 1984 Cri. LJ. 1171
1989 SCC OnLine Kar 404 1993 (2) CLJ 182 and fast rule on
the subject the matter may continue to be governed by the
discretion of the Courts as hithertofore.'
7. However, keeping in view the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and so also, Section 20 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inclusive of Article 215
of Constitution of India, this contempt proceeding is
hereby dropped.
Consequent upon disposal of the contempt petition,
pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
DKB
