Dismissed

Manjula. J v. Smt. N. Nagambika Devi

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2021CCC/160/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition regarding alleged violation of directions restraining relief of a nurse. Court held that since the accused was already relieved of service, initiating contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was not a fit case. The petitioner advised to seek appropriate interim relief in the pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; complainant advised to make application for appropriate interim relief in pending writ petition.

Manjula. J Vs Smt. N. Nagambika Devi — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

C.C.C NO.160 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJULA J D/O LATE JAYAPPA B AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED WORKING AS A STAFF NURSE MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SC CHITAHALLI, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DIST. R/O KAMANABHAVI EXTENSION NEAR KALIKA TEMPLE 4^TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA DIST. - 577 501

¶10

... COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SHRI JAGDISH SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. N.NAGAMBIKA DEVI

¶14

AGE BY MAJOR

¶15

THE SECRETARY

¶16

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT STATE OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA

¶17

BANGALORE - 1

¶18

SRI SIDDESHWARA N AGE BY MAJOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BOARD BUILDING

¶19

¶20

6 & 7 FLOOR, NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL CUNNINGHAM ROAD

¶21

BANGALORE - 560 052

¶22

... ACCUSED

¶23

(SHRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.2)

¶24

¶25

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INTIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE MADE IN W.P No.50320/2019 (SRES) ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 AND 09.03.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND D PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶26

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The breach alleged in the petition is of the order dated 8^th November 2019 which is an interim order which was continued on 9^th March 2020. Under the order dated 8^th November 2019, a direction was issued to the respondents not to relieve the petitioners from the post held by them. The present complainant was one of the petitioners.

¶29

A statement of objections has been filed by the accused stating that the complainant has been relieved from service on 26^th November 2019. A reliance is placed on the attendance register at Annexure-R2.

¶30

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

complainant submitted that the said attendance register is created subsequently by the Principal of the school. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment and order dated 5^th November 2019 passed in C.C.C No.1486/2019 which according to him was a similar case.

¶33

The document annexed as R2 to the statement of objections indicates that from 26^th October 2019, the complainant did not report to duty. It is not the case of the complainant that any grievance was made in writing by her about the failure of the school authorities to allow her to sign the attendance register.

¶34

A perusal of the judgment and order dated 5^th November 2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court shows that in the said case, the accused did not raise a contention that the complainant was already relieved. We may also note here that the order of which breach is alleged directed that the petitioners shall not be relieved.

¶35

Therefore, this is not a fit case to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, the complainant can always make an appropriate

¶36

¶37

application for appropriate interim relief in the pending writ

¶38

petition.

¶39

Subject to what is observed above, the contempt

¶40

petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

AHB

Manjula. J v. Smt. N. Nagambika Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula. J v. Smt. N. Nagambika Devi

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

M Krishna Murthy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayamma Vs Smt Varsha Wodeyar

Sri Venkana Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a J Kalakeri Vs State of Karnataka

Shiva Ganga Stone Crushing Industries Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish M Battur Vs State of Karnataka