A civil contempt petition filed years after a writ order was dismissed for limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act; applications to condone delay and recall dismissal were rejected and the petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41451-DB CCC No. 788 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 788 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESIDING AT NO.43 SHESHASAI APARTMENT FLAT NO. 302, 3RD FLOOR 2ND CROSS, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 019.
RESIDING AT NO. 17 PRASHANTH NAGAR NEAR KRISHNAPPAS HOUSE CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
NC: 2024:KHC:41451-DB CCC No. 788 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RETIRED SENIOR LECTURER PANCHAGIRI P.U. COLLEGE M.G. ROAD CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101. RESIDING AT NO. 1237/10 4TH WARD, PRASHANTH NAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S - ADVOCATE)
AND:
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C H - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.42299/201242311/2012 DATED 31.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, TAKE COGNIZANCE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceedings is initiated by the
complainant under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 of Constitution of India for willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.42299-42311/2012 (S-RES) dated 31.10.2012 as per Annexure-E. The learned single Judge has observed that in view of the direction issued by this Court, these writ petitions also stand disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.25447/2010 dated 16.08.2010, direction is issued to consider the case of the
petitioners as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under:
20. Limitation for actions for contempt.— No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
NC: 2024:KHC:41451-DB CCC No. 788 of 2022
52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice.
53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court.
Contempt of Courts Act and so also, the reliance of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, there is no substance to consider I.A.2/2022 for condonation of delay and so also, I.A.1/2023 for recalling the order dated 27.01.2023. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Even on merits, there is no substance to consider this contempt petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this
contempt petition is hereby closed.
Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
DKB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings could be initiated despite delay beyond one year under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Tirupati Rao vs. LingamaiahRelied on¶4
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Bharathi M.N.
Sri S.R. Ranganath
Sri Madhava A.N.
Dr. Selvakumar, Secretary to Government
Sri Pradeep, Commissioner, Pre-University Education
Sri N. Anandh, Deputy Director, Department of Pre-University Education
K. Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
