Disposed

Sri G Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021CCC/399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged the delay by disciplinary authorities in complying with an order dated 01.03.2021 regarding the petitioner's suspension. The Court held that since compliance was eventually made, further contempt proceedings were inapplicable, but costs were awarded. The petition was disposed of with the payment of Rs.15,000 in costs.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of; the respondent State of Karnataka was ordered to pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000 to the complainant.

Sri G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 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.399 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI G. MANJUNATH S/O SRI HOMBAPPA LAMANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT: NO.23, 3^RD 'B' CROSS, 3^RD 'B' MAIN, SOMESHWAR NAGAR, GKVK POST, BANGALORE - 560 065.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SHRI VENKATESULU V, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. PRAMILA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶15

SRI N MANJUNATH PRASAD

¶16

DEPT. OF REVENUE

¶17

M.S. BUILDING

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 001

¶19

SRI J. MANJUNATH

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER URBAN AND

¶21

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

¶22

BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶23

KANDHAYA BHAVANA

¶24

¶25

K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶26

... ACCUSED

¶27

(BY SHRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶28

¶29

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF COURT WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY BY DISOBEYING THE FINAL ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN W.P.NO.2257/2021 (S-KAT).

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶33

The breach alleged is of the order dated 1^st March 2021 which contains the following direction:

¶34

"… … In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that, ends of justice, would be met if, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit representation to the competent authority/Disciplinary Authority seeking revocation of suspension and in the event of such representation being made, the competent authority/Disciplinary Authority shall examine the same on merits and in accordance with the law as

¶35

¶36

required under Rule 10(5) (A) of the Karnataka Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1957 and pass order expeditiously thereon are at any rate within one month from the date of submission of the representation without being influenced by the order of the Tribunal."

¶37

There is an affidavit filed by Shri Manjunath J S/o Shri Jagannath S, Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District to which a copy of the order dated 24^th June 2021 has been annexed. By the said order, the suspension of the complainant has been revoked and the complainant has been posted to discharge the duty as SDA in the office of Anekal Taluk.

¶38

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant is that firstly there is an unexplained delay in complying with the order dated 1^st March 2021. Secondly, the subsistence allowance has not been paid to the complainant.

¶39

We have considered the submissions. The only direction issued in the order dated 1^st March 2021 was to consider the representation made by the complainant for revocation of the suspension. The order was required to be passed within one month from the date on which the representation was made by the complainant. Accordingly,

¶40

¶41

a representation was made on 22^nd March 2021. The present contempt petition was filed on 7^th June 2021 and the order has been passed on 24^th June 2021. Apart from giving a standard excuse of COVID-19, there is no reason assigned for the delay. The order ought to have been complied with within one month from 22^nd March 2021. As a result of the delay, the complainant has ended up in losing salary for two months.

¶42

In view of belated compliance, though further proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be initiated, the accused will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-.

¶43

Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶44

(i) The contempt petition is disposed of subject to condition of the first respondent - State of Karnataka paying costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶45

(ii) In the event complainant has any grievance regarding the correctness of the order dated 22^nd June 2021, the complainant can always file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law;

¶46

¶47

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs amount, the same shall be listed on 16^th August 2021.

¶48

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

AHB

Sri G Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Thakur Prasad Vs Suresh D S

Sri Javaregowda Vs the Divisional Controller

Nagaraja Shetty Vs Ramesh Shetty

M/S Consulate Constructions Vs the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt Sridevi Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller Vs Divya