[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Rajya Nivruta Poura ... vs Dr. Shalini Rajneesh on 13 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.318 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA RAJYA NIVRUTA POURA NOUKARARA
MATU POURA KARMIKARA SANGHA
O/O KUNDA MAHALAKSHMI NILAYA
4TH CROSS, SRINIVAS NAGAR
HULIYARU ROAD, HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT
MR. YAKUB ALI S/O ABDUL RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT. C/O SHABAD HOTEL
NEAR MAKA MASJID, MSK MILL
BRAHAMPUR POST, KALABURAGI-585 103
2. MR. MALLIKARJUN
S/O BASANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
O/O TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ALAND KALABURAGI
R/AT. 1-4-59, BEHIND HANUMAN TEMPLE
SULTANPUR GALI, KALABURAGI-585 302
3. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O YANKANNAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHORAPUR, KALABURAGI
-
2
R/AT. BICH GATAKERA, SHARAPUR
GORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR DISTRICT-585 224
4. MR. KUMAR
S/O LATE DANDU NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PERIYAPATNAM
R/AT.405, DODDANAYAKARA STREET
PERIYAPATNAM, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107
5. MR. LAKSHMI B.
S/O LATE B.M. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PUTTUR-574 201
R/AT. MOTTETHADKA HOUSE
KEMMINJE VILLAGE, DARBE POST
PUTTUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-574 201
6. MR. MAREPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHORAPUR, YADGIR-585 224
R/AT. SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224
7. MR. DEVAPPA
S/O ULLINGARAYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHAHAPUR, YADGIR-585 224
R/AT. No.6-98, DESAI STREET
HALLI SAGAR, SHAHAPUR TALUK
YADGIR-585 224
8. MR. SYED MAQSOOD BUKHARI
S/O SYED BUKHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-
3
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHORAPUR, YADGIR-585 224
R/AT. MOZAMPUR STREET 1-83
SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224
9. MR. SYED MAZAR AHAMED
S/O SYED JAFAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHAHAPUR, YADGIR-585 224
R/AT. 4-22-3-A, HALLISAGAR
SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224
10 . MR. SYED YUNUS DAKARI
S/O SYED YOSUF
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR-CUM LINE MAN
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHORAPUR, YADGIR-585 224
R/AT. 9-1-27, NEAR UMAR MASJID
SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224
11 . MRS. JAYALAKSHMI BEKAL
W/O C.H. MURALIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR-CUM-CLERK
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PUTTUR-574 201
R/AT. S.R. NILAYA, NEHRU ROAD
GORIGUDDU, KANKANADY POST
MANGALORE-574 201
12 . MR. ABU BAKAR TARAFDAR
S/O ABDUL RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
GADAG-582 209
R/AT. OLD MARKET, RON TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT-582 209
-
4
13 . MR. ASHOK
S/O BABU RAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BHALKI, BIDAR-585 328
R/AT. 3-2-37, KADKESHWAR GALLI
OLD TOWN BHALKI, BIDAR-585 328
14 . MR. M.A. HAFEEZ
S/O M.A. RASHEED
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ORIGINALLY WORKED AS SDA
NOW WORKING AS HEALTH INSPECTOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BIDAR-585 401
R/AT. OPP. ASRA MEDICAL SHAGANG
BIDAR-585 401
15 . MRS. AMRUTHARAO MALI
W/O CHARADASHA MALI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302
R/AT. No.2-265, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE
KUMBAR GALLI, ALAND
KALABURAGI-585 302
16 . MR. SIDARAMA
S/O GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302
R/AT. No.6-3-81-265, BALYAR GALLI
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585302
17 . MR. DHANAYYA
S/O VISHWANATHAYYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR
-
5
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302
R/AT. 6-1-14/55, REVANA SIDDESHWARA COLONY
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302
18 . SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O HEMANTH RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS TYPIST
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302
R/AT. No.1-1-100, NEAR SULTANPUR GA
ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302
19 . MR. GURULINGAPPA
S/O ADIVEPPA SULIKERE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
AFZALPUR, KALABURAGI-585 302
R/AT. GURUVINGOAPPAN STREET
ADIVEPPA SULIKERE POST
AFZALPUR, KALABURAGI-585 302
20 . MR. SHIVRAJ KUMAR
S/O SHANKAR JATTUR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS DAFEDAR
NOW AS HEALTH INSPECTOR
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHAHABAD, KALABURAGI-585 302
R/AT. 115, VIDYA NAGAR, SEDAM TALUK
KALABURAGI-585 302
21 . MR. ISAK S.
S/O LATE MONU BEARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS SDA
O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201
R/AT. SAMPYAMOOLE HOUSE
KURIYA POST, PUTTUR
GADAG-574 201
-
6
22 . MR. MUTTANNA
S/O SHARANAPPA BANDARI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS SDA
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHITAPUR, KALABURAGI-585 229
R/AT. No.16/2, ABL COLONY
16TH CROSS, SHAHABAD
KALABURAGI-574 201
23 . MR. SIDDAPPA SOMPUR
S/O CHANDRAM SOMPUR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER
O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHITAPUR, KALABURAGI-585 229
R/AT. CHANDRODHAYA NIVAS
HIREMATH LAYOUT
NEAR CHURCH, SOMPUR ROAD
VIJAPUR-513 004
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Dr. SHALINI RAJNEESH
CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. UMA SHANAKAR, IAS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
No.305, 4TH FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
-
7
3. SMT. SATHYAVATHI G.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DPAR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
4. SHRI. PRABHULING KAVALIKATTI, IAS
DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH FLOOR, V V TOWERS
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
...ACCUSED
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. K.S. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR PROFORMA R5;
A1 TO A4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE
DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT BY ORDER DATED
19.06.2023 PASSED IN W.P.No.13154/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
ETC.
THIS CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-
8
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging willful
disobedience of the Order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13154/2021 (S-
REG).
2. We have heard Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Anusha L, learned
advocate appearing for the complainants, Shri. Reuben
Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri.
K.S. Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government
Advocate, appearing for proforma respondent No.5.
3. It is submitted that the complainants were
appointed on a daily wage basis in 1990-1995 with the
respective City/Town Municipal Council. After the Municipal
Council passed a resolution, the complainants who had
rendered more than thirty years of service, approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.13154/2021. They sought
directions to the respondents to treat them as permanent
employees upon completion of ten years of service and to
-
regularize their services on the principle of parity, in the
light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Prem
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 10
SCC 516 and Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.B.Mahishy
and Others v. Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13
SCC 249.
4. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ
papers disclosed that respondent No.4 had passed an order
dated 05.11.2019 stating that a decision regarding
regularisation of the service of the petitioners was required
to be taken by the Government. However, despite the said
order, no further action was taken. Relying on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and a Division Bench
of this Court in The State of Karnataka v. R. Jagadeesh
and Others passed in Writ Appeal No.45/2013 and
connected appeals dated 13.11.2013, the learned Single
Judge disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to
the City/Town Municipal Council and Deputy Commissioner
to forward the service reports of the petitioners to
-
respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was directed to consider
the reports submitted by the respective City/Town Municipal
Council and Deputy Commissioner and to take an
appropriate decision in accordance with law and in light of
the decisions of Umadevi's case (supra) and R.
Jagadeesha's case (supra).
5. It is contended by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the complainants that the complainants have
rendered more than 25-30 years of service and have
approached this Court seeking regularisation as similar relief
has already been extended to their colleagues in similar
Town Municipal Councils. After hearing both the parties, this
Court directed that the case of the complainants be
considered in the light of the decision rendered in Writ
Appeal No.45/2013 in which a mandamus was issued by
order dated 13.11.2013. On the basis of the said
mandamus, the order was implemented by the State
Government by Order dated 11.09.2020. Consequently, on
the principle of parity, the directions issued by this Court are
-
required to be complied with in respect of the complainants
as well.
6. Accused No.4 has filed a memo producing the
proceedings of the Director, Directorate of Municipal
Administration, Bengaluru, dated 25.03.2024 and submits
that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge stand
complied with. It is submitted that the case of each of the
Employees has been considered with reference to the report
forwarded by the City/Town Municipal Councils and the
criteria laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case
(supra), it has been found that the employees are not
eligible for regularisation of service since the conditions
provided have not been complied with. It is submitted that
in view of the fact that the reports of the City/Town
Municipal Councils have been specifically considered and
adverted to while passing the orders, the Contempt of Court
Case cannot survive for further consideration.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
complainants submits that a reading of the Order dated
25.03.2024, would show that the specific material forwarded
-
by the City/Town Municipal Councils has not been properly
considered by the Director and that the attempt of the
Government is to find some means to reject the claim of the
complainants. It is contended that the direction being
specifically to consider the claims on the basis of the report
submitted by the City/Town Municipal Councils, the accused
who have not complied with the said directions are still in
contempt and are liable to be proceeded against.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The direction issued by the learned Single Judge by order
dated 21.10.2020 in Writ Petition No.50876/2019 c/w. Writ
Petitions No.8573/2020, 31602/2019 (S-REG), reads as
follows:-
"A writ of mandamus issues to respondent No.5-
Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularisation of their services in terms of
the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Uma
Devi and the Government Order dated 25.05.2006 from
the date on which the petitioners completed ten years of
service."
9. The learned Single Judge had also found that the
writ petitions could not be dismissed on delay and laches
-
and the relevant material including the recommendations of
the City/Town Municipal Councils as well as the earlier
recommendations issued in favour of the complainants were
not properly considered and communicated to the
complainants that the earlier orders were quashed.
Thereafter, the accused contend that the claim for
regularisation was specifically taken up by accused No.4
and the claim of each of the complainants for regularisation
was considered in terms of the criteria laid down in
Umadevi's case (supra), and the claims were rejected, on
clear factual findings.
10. Having perused the Orders placed before us along
with the compliance affidavit, we find that the materials and
reports forwarded by the City/Town Municipal Councils and
the earlier recommendations and communications of the
Director have been considered by accused No.4 while
passing the order dated 25.03.2024 by the Director,
Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru. The
question whether the factual aspects, as considered by
-
accused No.4, are correct and justifiable are not the matters
which this Court can consider in the contempt jurisdiction.
11. This Court in Malathi Das's case (supra), has
clearly held that an action for Contempt of Court would be
maintainable only if there is a deliberate contempt
committed of the Orders of the Court. It has also been held
that on a wrong compliance or an imperfect compliance on
the basis of the perception and understanding of the
decision makers cannot give rise to an action for contempt
or a punishment for the same.
12. In view of the fact that the proceedings of the
Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru,
has been issued by Order dated 25.03.2024, considering the
contentions advanced as well as the earlier communications
on the point, we are of the opinion that, any further
contentions have to be considered in a properly constituted
challenge to the same.
13. In the above view of the matter, the Contempt of
Court Case is closed with liberty to the complainants to
-
challenge the proceedings of the Director, Directorate of
Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, issued by Order
No.1157655/DMA/EST 2/DWE/26/2023 dated 25.03.2024.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
