[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies vs Sri Shivappa Kuri on 17 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.453 OF 2024
IN W.A. No.1010 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LIMITED
No.16/1, MILLER TANK BED AREA
VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LIMITED
DISTRICT OFFICE, BELLARY-583 101
REP. BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHIVAPPA KURI
S/O BHEEMAPPA KURI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RETIRED PURCHASE OFFICER
KFCSC, RESIDING AT No.3993/83
NANDA GOKULA 21ST MAIN
KUVEMPU NAGAR, MCC 'B' BLOCK
2
SHAMANUR ROAD
NEAR MAVINTOPU HOSPITAL
DAVANAGERE-577 004
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 052
4. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
MULTISTOREYED BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.M. JAYADEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VEDA MURTHY M.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.14735/2018 DATED 7TH
DECEMBER 2023, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER/S AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO PASS ON THE
FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN CCC No.453 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA KURI
S/O BHEEMAPPA KURI
3
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RTD. PURCHASE OFFICER, KFCSC
R/AT. 3993/83, NANDAGOKULA
21ST MAIN, KUVEMPU NAGAR
MCC, 'B' BLOCK
SHAMANUR ROAD
NEAR MAVINTOPU HOSPITAL
DAVANAGERE-577 004
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. J.M. JAYADEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VEDA MURTHY M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
2. SMT. KANAGAVALLI M., I.A.S.
THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 052
3. SRI. M.V. CHANDRAKANTH, I.P.S.
MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LTD.,
No.16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
4. SRI. B. PRAKASH
DISTRICT MANAGER
THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LIMITED
DISTRICT OFFICE, BELLARY-583 101
4
5. SMT. USHA RANI
THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & A2;
SRI. H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR A3;
SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR A5;
A4 -SERVED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING
NOT COMPLIED WITH TIME BOUND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY
THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.14735/2018 VIDE ORDER 7TH
DECEMBER 2023 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSE OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT HAVING NOT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THIS COURT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.03.2026 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 MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
5
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This appeal is filed by the Karnataka Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited against the Order of the
learned Single Judge dated 07.12.2023, passed in W.P.
No.14735/2018 (S-RES).
2. We have heard Shri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned
counsel appearing of the appellant in the Writ Appeal and for
accused No.3 in the Contempt of Court Case,
Shri. J.M. Jayadevaiah, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 in the Writ Appeal and for the complainant
in the Contempt of Court Case, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State and Shri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 in the Writ Appeal and for
accused No.5 in the Contempt of Court Case.
3. After considering the charges framed against the
writ petitioner and the findings of the Lokayukta, which
undertook the investigation under Section 7(2A) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the learned Single Judge
found that the allegation against the writ petitioner was
completely unfounded. The contentions of the learned
counsel appearing for the Lokayukta as well as the
Government were considered by the learned Single Judge
and it was found that it is only if the main allegation
regarding shortfall of maize or irregularity in procurement is
established against the petitioner that the supplementary
allegation of not collecting relevant documents require an
enquiry. On these grounds, the memo of charges insofar as
it relates to charge No.10 as against the writ petitioner was
quashed. It was further directed that the writ petitioner
would be entitled to all consequential benefits, which shall
be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the
order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has made available a fully translated copy of the judgment
with translation of the extractions in vernacular.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the report of the Lokayukta, specifically found
that the writ petitioner had failed to collect the required
documents from the farmers while procuring maize. It was
found that the said conduct of the writ petitioner was in
violation of the Circular dated 12.11.2008. It is submitted
that this is an independent charge as against the writ
petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be enquired
into.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/writ petitioner would, on the other hand, contend that
the entire investigation was undertaken by the Karnataka
Lokayukta pursuant to a request made by the Secretary,
department of Food and Civil Supplies, Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru, dated 19.03.2011. The request specifically was
to conduct an investigation into the irregularities alleged to
have taken place in the purchase of maize during the year
2008-2009 under the Government of India Sponsored
Project in Bellary District, by the Karnataka Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation Ltd.
7. The Karnataka Lokayukta took up the
investigation and submitted a comprehensive report dated
17.06.2013, which is marked as Annexure-B. The relevant
portion of the report as regards the purchase of maize at the
Hadagali Purchase Centre is extracted by the learned Single
Judge in the judgment. It was specifically found that there
was no error or irregularity in the purchase of the maize and
there was no shortage of maize or misutilisation of the stock
whatsoever.
8. It is stated that the allegation with regard to
Hadagali Purchase Center was specifically that during the
year 2008-09, 38,007.25 quintals of maize was collected in
the Hadagali Maize Collection Centre and 37,245.43 quintals
have been released and there is a deficiency of remaining
761.82 quintals and the value of which has been
misappropriated. However, the Lokayukta, after an enquiry
conducted found as follows:
"7.03. Opinion:- Based on the detailed report and
documents submitted by the respondent, it is found
that the respondent purchased 38,002-90 quintals
and took them into stock. The maize purchased in
this way was sent to the Huivanahadagali and
Hospet State Warehouses in the amount of 30,589-
05 quintals and 7,418-20 (30,589-05+7,418-20-
38,007-25) quintals respectively. It is not found
that any kind of misappropriation of maize has
been found."
9. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that
since the allegations raised against the purchase of maize at
the Hadagali Maize Collection Centre is specifically found not
proved by the Lokayukta, the action taken to issue a charge
memo as against the writ petitioner was completely
unwarranted.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced and
having perused the documents produced along with the writ
petition, we are unable to find any material to differ from
the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. There is no
merit in the contentions raised in the appeal. Accordingly,
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The appellants are given 6 weeks
further time to see that the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge are
complied with.
(iii) The Contempt of Court Case is
closed. However, if the amounts as
directed by the learned Single Judge
are not disbursed within a period of 6
weeks from today, the complainant is
free to seek reopening of the
contempt and take further action in
the contempt of Court Case.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
PN
