The High Court of Karnataka examined a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging breach of an ex parte stay order. The bench held that initiating contempt proceedings in such circumstances is unjust without affording respondents an opportunity to contest the interim relief
Petition disposed of; pending interlocutory application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CCC NO. 362/2020 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN
SHASHIDHARA T.D. S/O LATE T.S. DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR GRAMA SAHAYAKA (NOW REMOVAL FROM SERVICE) THIMMALAPURA CIRCLE DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK R/O THIMMALAPURA MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 112
…COMPLAINANT (BY SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI UMESH H.M. ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAVANAPPA T.K., ADVOCATE )
AND
DR. G. VISHWANATHA MAJOR, TAHASILDAR MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132
…ACCUSED
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE COMPLAINANT
2
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.51595/2019 (S-RES) DATED 04.12.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND PURSUANCE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the morning session, Shri K.B. Monesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner argued
the matter. For passing orders, the matter was kept at 2.30 p.m. When the matter was called out at 2.30 p.m., another counsel Shri Umesh H.M., again started arguing on merits though we had expressed an opinion in the morning session that we are not inclined to entertain this contempt petition. Only after the Court objected to the attempt to re-argue the case, the learned counsel stopped arguing.
3
Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the complainant. In the writ petition, the challenge was to the order dated 17th September 2019 by which, the complainant was removed from the post of Grama Sahayaka. By the order of which breach is committed as alleged, the learned Single Judge, while issuing the notice, granted stay of the order dated 17th September 2019 till the next date.
2019, it is an ex parte ad interim order by which, stay was granted to the order dated 17th September 2019. There is no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge of reinstatement of the complainant into service.
4
The Court always retains a discretion in such matters.
decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF J & K vs MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN AND OTHERS1 . Paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the said decision are relevant which read thus:
“5. We find great force in the argument of Mr Salve that so long the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of, the further proceeding in the contempt case was itself misconceived and no orders therein should have been passed. Mr Bhandare appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who is respondent before us, has strenuously contended that the orders passed in the contempt proceedings should be treated to have disposed of the stay matter in the writ petition also. He laid great emphasis on the fact that the counsel for
1 (1992) 4 SCC 167
5
the respondents in the writ petition had been heard before the orders were issued. He invited our attention to the merits of the claim. It is argued that the order dated March 19, 1990 must, in the circumstances, be treated to have become final and, therefore, binding on the State and the High Court was right in issuing the further direction by way of implementation of earlier order.
6. We do not agree. The scope of a contempt proceeding is very different from that of the pending main case yet to be heard and disposed of (in future). Besides, the respondents in a pending case are at a disadvantage if they are called upon to meet the merits of the claim in a contempt proceeding at the risk of being punished. It is, therefore, not right to suggest that it should be assumed that the initial order of stay got confirmed by the subsequent orders passed in the contempt matter.”
(underlines supplied)
7. There is another decision of the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY vs ABDUL MAJID RATHER2 .
Paragraph 14 of the said decision is relevant which reads thus:
“4. The law of contempt is based on sound public policy by punishing any conduct which shakes the public confidence in the administration of justice. The order dated 21-9-1992 while directing notice also required the appellant to accord promotion to the respondent as Associate Professor. It requires to be noticed here that is the main prayer in the writ petition itself. In such circumstances, the correctness of such an interim order is open to serious doubt. For a moment, it is not to be understood that the court has
2 (1994) 4 SCC 34
6
no power to pass such an order but the question is whether while granting such interim reliefs the discretion of the court has been correctly exercised? If the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the respondent would have gained an undue advantage of getting a promotion undeservedly. But we are not on the merits of the interim order.”
7
survive and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
SN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings against a breach of an ex parte stay order are fit cases to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether it is unjust to initiate contempt proceedings without giving an opportunity to respondents to contest the prayer for interim order in the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
STATE OF J & K vs MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN AND OTHERSReferred¶28
(1992) 4 SCC 167 · Who else cites this
MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY vs ABDUL MAJID RATHERReferred¶36
(1994) 4 SCC 34 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shashidhara T.D.
Dr. G. Vishwanatha
Abhay S. Oka
S. Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
