Allowed

R S Biradar v. Smt. K Leelavathy I a S

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2022CCC/606/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant filed contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of a writ order directing reconsideration of service posting. The Division Bench observed the accused submitted an endorsement considering the court's observations and dropped the proceedings, leaving parties to pursue rights under law if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were dropped accepting the counter affidavit and the endorsement dated 14.07.2021.

R S Biradar Vs Smt. K Leelavathy I a S — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶7

C.C.C. No.606/2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

R.S. BIRADAR S/O SHAHEBPATEL BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS DESIGNATED OFFICER/ FOOD SAFETY OFFICER, MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KALBURGI DISTRICT, KALBURGI, R/O F-F6, ASIAN MALL, KALBURGI

¶10

...COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. K. LEELAVATHY, I.A.S.

¶14

COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD SAFETY

¶15

KARNATAKA PUBLIC HEALTH

¶16

INSTITUTE, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 01

¶17

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,

¶19

VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01

¶20

…ACCUSED

¶21

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶22

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.37025/2018 (S-KAT) DATED 06.03.2021, CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P.

¶23

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The complainant filed the present contempt petition to take action against accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2021 in W.P.No.37025/2018, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, as well as order dated 22.09.2017 issued by respondent No.2 therein, insofar as posting of the petitioner to respondent No.4Department, directed respondent No.2-the Commissioner for Food Safety Karnataka Public Health Institute, to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the writ petition and take appropriate decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four months. Accused herein passed the endorsement as per Annexure-Q dated 14.07.2021. Thereby, the present contempt petition is filed by the complainant.

¶27

Sri. M.Subrahmanya Bhat, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the endorsement passed by the

¶28

¶29

accused/respondent at Annexure-Q is contrary to the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.37025/2018. Therefore, the said endorsement cannot be sustained. Thereby, accused/respondent has shown utter disregard to the finding recorded by this Court. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶30

Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the averments made in the counter objections, contended that after considering the observations made in W.P.No.37025/2018, the accused/respondent passed the detailed endorsement on 14.07.2021 and the same is communicated to the complainant after noticing all the observations made by Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Division Bench has been complied with. The submission of the learned HCGP is placed on record.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that in the writ petition filed by the complainant, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 10.08.2018 in Application No.5892/2017 passed by the Karnataka

¶32

¶33

State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru and also consequently the order dated 22.09.2017 insofar as posting of the petitioner to respondent No.4-Director, Health and Food Welfare Services and the matter was restored to the file of respondent No.2 therein for re-consideration and directed the said respondent No.2 to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the order.

¶34

The specific contention of the learned HCGP for the accused in the counter affidavit is that, the accused passed the endorsement as per Annexure-Q after considering the observations made in W.P.No.37025/2018. If according to the complainant, the learned Division Bench was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to the specific relief, they ought to have allowed the writ petition instead of directing the accused/respondent to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the order. The counter affidavit filed by the accused and the endorsement passed as per Annexure-Q depicts that they have considered the observations made in the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Though learned counsel for the complainant submits that it will take further period of 5 years, we are helpless as the procedural

¶35

¶36

lapses are prescribed and everybody will try to misuse the procedural aspects including the Government. If the complainant is not happy with the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the accused, it is always open for the complainant to pursue his rights in accordance with law.

¶37

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Accepting objections/counter affidavit filed by the accused and the endorsement dated 14.07.2021, the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.

¶40

(ii) It is needless to observe that it is always open for the complainant to challenge the endorsement dated 14.07.2021, if he is so aggrieved, in accordance with law.

¶41

(iii) The observation made by this Court while disposing of the contempt petition shall not

¶42

¶43

come in the way of the complainant to pursue his rights in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SMJ

R S Biradar v. Smt. K Leelavathy I a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Biradar v. Smt. K Leelavathy I a S

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 National Housing Vs Sri. C.T. Benjamin

Shri Ramesh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramakrishna Vs Shri Manjunath

Sri C Nagaraju Vs Sri Selvakumar

Sri. P Sreeramulu Reddy Vs Sri. M Krishna

Mr G S Prabhakar Vs Mr Rajesh Gowda