Dismissed

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2017CCC/200083/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Contempt Certiorari Case, the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Kalaburagi dealt with an application against the University Registrar for violating a prior writ order. The court held that no contempt proceedings maintain against an authority who was not impleaded as a party in the original writ petition, as no direction could be issued against him.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable due to failure to array the proper authority as a party in the original writ petition.

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan Vs Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶8

CCC No.200083/2017 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan S/o S.R Mahato, Age: 42 years # 18, Kalyankar Building Khuba Plot, Behind KEB Kalaburagi – 585 102

¶11

…Complainant

¶12

(By Sri Jeetendra Kumar Rajan, Party-in-person)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy The Registry (Evaluation) Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) “Jnana Sangama” Belagavi – 590 018

¶15

…Accused

¶16

(By Sri B. Anand Shetty, Advocate)

¶17

¶18

This CCC is filed under Section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to initiate contempt proceeding against the accused the Registrar Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy, for violating the Court Order WP No.205856/2016 (EDN-EX) dated 18^th January 2017, and order for taking action as deemed fit as per law.

¶19

This CCC coming on for Orders this day, Nagarathna J., made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

By order dated 18.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.205856/2016, the learned Single Judge of this court directed petitioner to submit his representation, a copy of which was marked as Annexure-A, to respondent No.3 in the writ petition i.e. the Special Officer, Kalaburagi Regional Office, Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU), Kusnoor Road, Kalaburagi-585 105, on or before 31.01.2017. Respondent No.3 was to immediately forward the same to respondent No.2 in the writ petition for his comments, if any. Respondent No.2 is the Registrar

¶22

¶23

(Evaluation) Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU), “Jnana Sangam” Belagavi-590018. Respondent No.2 in the writ petition was to consider the grievance of the petitioner and notify the petitioner about the outcome with expedition, on or before 28.02.2017.

¶24

The complainant has appeared as party-inperson. He submits that there is gross violation of the order of Hon’ble Single Judge inasmuch as respondent in the contempt petition has not complied with the directions issued by this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent submits that in the writ petition the authority has been arrayed as Registrar (Evaluation) as the second respondent, but, the respondent in the contempt petition is no doubt the Registrar (Evaluation) as an authority, but, Dr.H.N.Jagannatha Reddy is not the Registrar (Evaluation). He submits that Dr.H.N.Jagannatha

¶26

¶27

Reddy is Registrar of the University who was not made a party in the writ petition. Hence, no contempt lies against the respondent in the contempt petition.

¶28

The complainant, who has appeared as party-in-person endorses the said submission and states that on the advice of the University, he has arrayed Dr.H.N.Jagannatha Reddy, as the Registrar (Evaluation).

¶29

We are not concerned as to on whose advice Dr.H.N.Jagannatha Reddy, has been arrayed as accused in this petition. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, Dr.H.N.Jagannatha Reddy, the respondent – accused in this contempt petition being a Registrar of the University and not being a party to the writ petition, no contempt proceeding would lie as against him as no direction was issued by learned Single Judge, as against the present

¶30

¶31

respondent. Hence, contempt petition is dismissed as

not maintainable.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

sdu

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Jeelani S/O Ruknuddin Vs the Special Land Acquisition Offcier and Anr.

Shivaraj S/O Shivalingappa Chengti Vs Sri.Mahesh R Hiremath

Smt.Muttamma and Anr. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Smt.Uzma Roohi W/O Md. Ateek Ahmed D/O Akbar Ali Vs Iqbal Ahmed S/O Abdul Rehman

Ladlesab S/O Maktumsab Sumbad Vs Director General and Ors.

Yallappa S/O Srirang Padwale and Ors. Vs Smt Jatinder Kaur W/O Premjeet Singh and Anr.