Dismissed

Shri. Hemaraja v. Shri. Tushar Girinath

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2021CCC/355/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dealt with a contempt petition alleging violation of an order directing the State Government to regularize services. The respondent admitted delay but tendered an unconditional apology. The court discharged the petition on apology and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of by accepting unconditional apology; State Government directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to each applicant.

Shri. Hemaraja Vs Shri. Tushar Girinath — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

C.C.C. NO.355 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SHRI. HEMARAJA S/O. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU.

¶11

2 . SHRI. R. RAMESH KUMAR S/O. SHRI. T. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, HOODI SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU.

¶12

3 . SHRI. K. S. SHESHAGIRI S/O. SHRI. K. V. SURYANARAYANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

¶13

¶14

ENGINEER, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU.

¶15

4 . SMT. SHARADA W/O. VENKATESH PAI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI.

¶16

5 . SHRI SUDHAKAR KOTIAN S/O. GIRIYA BENGERA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI.

¶17

6 . SHRI. DAYANANDA SALONKAR S/O. RAMACHANDRA SALONKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI.

¶18

7 . SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH S/O. SHRI. K. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI.

¶19

8 . SMT. SARASWATHI W/O. SHRI. ASHOK S. KOTIAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI.

¶20

¶21

9 . SHRI. NATHU POOJARY S/O. RAMAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI.

¶22

10 . SMT. R. NALINA

¶23

W/O. SHRI. A. MURALIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶24

11 . SMT. M. THERESA

¶25

W/O. SHRI. S. C. MARI JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶26

12 . SHRI. N. M. SUNIL

¶27

S/O. SHRI. N.C. MADHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, METER READER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶28

13 . SHRI. R. PARAMESHWARA S/O. SHRI. T. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DRIVER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶29

14 . SRI. G. NAGESH

¶30

S/O. G. GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DRIVER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶31

¶32

15 . SMT. K. L. SUMANA W/O. SHRI. P. R. SETHURAMAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶33

16 . SMT. G. S. SHANTHALA RANI W/O. SHRI. B. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CLERK-CUM-TYPIST, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶34

... COMPLAINANTS

¶35

(BY SHRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

1 . SHRI. TUSHAR GIRINATH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶38

2 . SHRI. B. B. KAVERI DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT, 9^TH FLOOR, VISVESWARAYA TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶39

... ACCUSED

¶40

3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶41

... PRO FORMA RESPONDENT NO.3

¶42

(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.05.2021)

¶43

(BY SHRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR A-1, A-2 AND PRO FORMA RESPONDENT)

¶44

¶45

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING VIOLATED THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NOS.3608136107/2013 (S-REG) DATED 09.08.2018 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO AWARD COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

¶46

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the accused as well as the State Government.

¶49

The breach alleged is of the order dated 9^th August, 2018 and in particular, the direction contained in paragraph 2 of the said order against the second accused to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularization of their services as expeditiously as possible. On 11^th January, 2019, the complainants made a representation to the accused giving all the details of the services

¶50

¶51

rendered by the writ petitioners. It appears that on 1^st April, 2019, the second accused forwarded a proposal to regularize the services of the complainants. On 5^th October, 2019, certain clarifications were sought by the first respondentfirst accused from the second accused. On 10^th November, 2019 (Annexure-D), necessary clarifications were submitted by the second accused to the first accused.

¶52

On 20^th February, 2020, a legal notice was issued by the complainants through their advocate to the first accused calling upon the first accused to

¶53

comply with the order. As no steps were taken, the present contempt petition was filed on 21^st April, 2021.

¶54

On 19^th July, 2021, the learned Additional Government Advocate stated that the order of which breach is alleged will be implemented within a period of three weeks from that date.

¶55

¶56

Accordingly, along with an affidavit of the second accused of 21^st August, 2021, a copy of the order dated 18^th August, 2021 has been produced on the record.

¶57

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the complainants is that the cases of fourteen writ petitioners have not been properly considered and that they have been erroneously denied the benefit of regularization. As far as this grievance is concerned, the aggrieved writ petitioners will have to file substantive proceedings to challenge the order of the State Government.

¶58

As stated earlier, by the order dated 9^th August, 2018, a direction was issued by this Court to decide the claim of the writ petitioners for regularization as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the said order ought to have been complied with within a reasonable time which can be taken as three months in the facts of the case.

¶59

¶60

Even the clarifications as required by the first accused were issued by the second accused on 10^th November, 2019. Moreover, a legal notice was issued way back on 20^th February, 2020 to the first accused by the advocate for the complainants.

¶61

In the affidavit of the second accused, there is absolutely no reason assigned why the order of this Court dated 9^th August, 2018 which ought to have been complied with at least within three months from that date was not complied with till August 2021. Thus, there is a gross delay of more than two and a half years in complying with the order of

¶62

this Court for which there is absolutely no explanation. Except for stating that the delay was due to administrative exigencies, even an attempt

¶63

has not been made by the second accused to explain such a long delay. However, considering the belated compliance and an unconditional apology tendered by the second accused in

¶64

¶65

paragraph 5 of her affidavit, further action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not warranted.

¶66

Due to a very long delay which remains unexplained, we propose to saddle the State Government with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants.

¶67

Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The contempt petition is disposed of by

¶70

accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the second accused subject to the condition of the third respondent-State of Karnataka paying costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to each complainant on or before 30^th September, 2021;

¶71

(ii) It will be always open for those complainants who are aggrieved by the order dated

¶72

¶73

18^th August, 2021 to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for challenging the same;

¶74

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding the payment of costs, list the petition on 4^th October, 2021 under the caption of 'Orders.'

¶75

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

vgh*

Shri. Hemaraja v. Shri. Tushar Girinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Hemaraja v. Shri. Tushar Girinath

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

N Muniramappa Vs Sri Dr Selvamani R I a S(KN-2013)

Smt. S. Jalaja Vs Union of India

Fayaz Sheik Vs S H Thirumalesha

M Janardhana Nayak S/O Late K Krishnappa Nayak Vs the Karnataka State Construction Corporation Ltd.

M/S. Neo Sharp Engineering Technologies Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rangegowda Vs the Divisional Controller