Dismissed

K O Varkey v. Mr Anjum Parwez IAS

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021CCC/393/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed for alleged violation of an order mandating extension of consequential benefits. The High Court noted amount paid and acknowledged receipt, held no willful disobedience proved, and dropped the petition with liberty to complainant to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped; liberty reserved to complainant to raise grievance before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

K O Varkey Vs Mr Anjum Parwez IAS — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

C.C.C. NO.393 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K.O.VARKEY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE K.V.OUSEPH, RESIDENT OF KODIYAN HOUSE, THUMBARASSERY VILLAGE, KUZHUR POST, TRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680 734. ...COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI MANOJ S.N, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR.ANJUM PARWEZ, IAS

¶14

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, M.S.BUILDING,

¶15

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

MR.ANJUM PARWEZ, IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DPAR, M.S.BUILDING,

¶17

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

MR.N.SHIVAKUMAR, IPS

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT,

¶20

¶21

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 1.

¶22

M.P.OMKARESHWARI, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRASPORT

¶23

(ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, IV FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,

¶24

BANGALORE - 1.

¶25

SRI YOGEESH A.M, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE -570001.

¶26

SMT.ROHINI SINDHURI, IAS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT,

¶27

MYSORE - 570 001. …ACCUSED

¶28

(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR HCGP FOR A1 TO A6)

¶29

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND MAY INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT'S AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR WILFUL VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED IN WP NO.3166/2019 (ANNEXURE-B) AND DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO COMPLY THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT INCLUDING THE EXTENSION OF CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO THE COMPLAINANTS.

¶30

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Mr. Manoj S.N., learned counsel for Mrs. Anusha L, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶34

Mr. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for accused Nos.1 to 6.

¶35

This petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the direction contained in the order dated 6.3.2020 passed in W.P.No.3166/2019 by which the writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 was dismissed and a direction was issued that the complainant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits for the post of First Division Assistant.

¶36

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶37

Learned counsel for the accused while

¶38

inviting our attention to paragraph 2 of the

¶39

¶40

affidavit filed on behalf of the accused submitted that the amount due as per the order passed by this Court has been paid to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant by communication dated 29.7.2021 has acknowledged the receipt of the benefits to the retired official.

¶41

However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is further submitted by him that he has not received the consequential benefits for the post of First Division Assistant.

¶42

Be that as it may, in the instant case, there is no willful disobedience of the direction contained in the order dated 6.3.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3166/2019.

¶43

¶44

We, therefore are not inclined to proceed

¶45

further with the contempt proceedings. Liberty is reserved to the complainant to raise his grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶46

With the aforesaid liberty, contempt petition is dropped.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

K O Varkey v. Mr Anjum Parwez IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K O Varkey v. Mr Anjum Parwez IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller Vs M S Kumara

Sri H M Munaygowda Vs the State of Karnataka

District 317A Lions Service Foundation Vs J Manjunatha IAS

Sohamas Bicester Village Block B Apartment Owner Association Vs Sri N Manjunath Prasad, I.A.S

Sri. P. a. Govardhan, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs Nanda Kumar