Karnataka High Court
M. N. Venkatesh vs Sri. N. D. Prakash on 29 January, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
CCC No. 340 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 340 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M. N. VENKATESH
S/O. NAGENDRA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
DAILY WAGE TYPIST,
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
THIRTHAHALLI-577 432,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
SRI. N.D. PRAKASH,
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,1971 AND THE CONTEMPT OF
COURT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
CCC No. 340 of 2023
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE
COURT ON 22.6.2022 IN WP NO.51010/2012 (S-REG).
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 VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainant in respect of the order passed by the Learned
Single Judge on the writ side in writ petition
No.51010/2012 (S-REG), dated 22.06.2022, vide
Annexure-D. But in para-11 of the orders rendered by the
Learned Single Judge on the writ side, it indicates that the
circular dated 13.11.2006, does not come to the aid of the
respondents. Even otherwise, the observations made in
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
the order passed in the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP makes
it clear that the case of individual workman will have to be
considered. In the light of such observation, it is not open
for the respondents to contend that the daily wage
workers who have worked under the protection of the
interim orders passed in some other matters as regards
class of daily wage workers are disentitled to claim the
relief of regularization. Accordingly, writ petition deserves
to be allowed. The endorsements at Annexure- J and and
also the endorsement at Annexure-P is liable to be set-
aside.
2. Wherein the learned counsel for the
complainant in this matter submits that the endorsement
at Annexures-J and P issued by the authorities is liable to
be set-aside and therefore its requirement for
implementation of the orders passed by Learned Single
Judge on the writ side.
3. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent
/ accused namely, Sri.B.G.Somayaji who is present before
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
the Court physically and submitting forcefully to consider
the affidavit of Sri.N.D. Prakash S/o. of Dasappa as
working as Director (Development), Office of the
Karnataka Pnachayat Raj Commissionerate and he worked
as a Chief Executive Officer at the time at Zilla Panchayat
Shivamogga from 12.08.2022 till 30.03.2023 and the
same has been indicated in para no.1 of the affidavit.
4. This affidavits are consisting of para-1 to para -
10 whereas in para-5 of this Affidavit indicates that - also
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Uma Devi's case reported in (2006 AIR SCW
1991) held that, unless the appointment is in terms of
relevant rules, and after proper competition among
qualified persons, the same would not confer any rights on
the appointee and such appointment is illegal. Hon'ble
Supreme Court also held that illegal appointment /
employment cannot be legalized or regularized and also
held that the Executive has no power to regularize the
illegal appointment, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
of India in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph no.44 of
that judgment has made an observation that and also
stated that irregular appointments (not illegal
appointment) can be regularized if the conditions stated
therein are satisfied. Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2009 AIR SCW 2346 (State of Karnataka vs. G.V.
Chandrashekar) setting aside the judgments of the High
Courts since the initial recruitment being only illegal and
contrary to the constitutional scheme of this Country.
5. Whereas in para no.7 of this affidavit it reveals
as since the Executive has no power to legalise or
regularize illegal appointment / employment, Karnataka
Legislature enacted the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees
Welfare Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to
protect their interest. Complainant's name is included in
the Government Order dated 08.05.2014, at Sl.No.2418.
6. In para-9 of this Affidavit an observation is
made that the complainant is not appointed under any
Recruitment Rules and he is not appointed after calling for
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
application and his employment is illegal. Executive has no
power to regularize his services. The Government after
being satisfied that his service cannot be regularized,
included his name at Sl.No.2418 in Government Order
dated 08.05.2014 and gave him protection under the
Karnataka Daily Wage Welfare Employees Act, 2012. The
same has been in detail stated in para no.9 and also
produced at Annexure-E for the purpose of perusal and
thereafter it also indicates as endorsement is in
accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India i.e., Umadevi's case and submitting that the order
passed by this Court in relation to the initiation of the writ
petition is fully complied with.
7. However, keeping in view the submission made
by the learned counsel for the complainant and so also
keeping in view the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondent / accused in respect of the
affidavit in detail has been filed. But it is relevant to refer
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
India in a judgment of one S.Tirupathi Rao vs M
Lingamaiah And Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
1764, wherein at para-52 an observation is made that, 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the
course of justice.
8. However, keeping in view the provisions Section
-2(b) of the Contempt Of Courts Act and it is relating to
the definition of the ingredients to constitute the offences
for framing of a charge-against the respondent / accused
and equally keeping in view the provision of Section - 11
and 12 of Contempt Of Courts Act 1971 and even keeping
in view the aforesaid provisions of law and so also keeping
in view the detailed affidavit as submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent / accused and more so, it is
relevant to record no ability to comply a person is
genuineness unable to comply with the court orders and
therefore if the contempt proceeding does not survive for
consideration, even in pursuance of the reliance as
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB
Consequently, this contempt proceedings are hereby
dropped.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
JJ
CT:SNN
