Dismissed

Smt. Geeta S Challagidad v. Sri. P Manivanna

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024CCC/855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an oral order disposed of a contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The court held the petition not maintainable and did not survive because the complainant was currently in service. A grievance regarding the muster roll was directed to be addressed via representation, outside the present contempt proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition disposed of as not surviving; grievance on muster roll to be addressed via representation.

Smt. Geeta S Challagidad Vs Sri. P Manivanna — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37462-DB CCC No. 855 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CCC NO. 855 OF 2024 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. GEETA S. CHALLAGIDAD W/O. SHIVU SANGATI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS A STAFF NURSE MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (SC-278), DHANNUR HUNGUND TALUK BAGALKOT DIST - 587 118.

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI JAGDISH SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI P. MANIVANNA AGED BY MAJOR, THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 1.

¶16

SMT. LATHA KUMARI K.S. AGE BY MAJOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37462-DB CCC No. 855 of 2024

¶19

(ITS UNDER TAKING GOVT.)

¶20

KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BOARD BUILDING, 6 & 7 FLOOR, NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶21

SRI SADASIV S. BADIGER AGE BY MAJOR, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOT BAGALKOT DIST.- 587 101.

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 1.

¶23

…ACCUSED

¶24

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶25

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO.11127/2022 (S-RES) ORDER DATED 21.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & ETC,.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37462-DB CCC No. 855 of 2024

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶29

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶32

By filing this contempt petition, the contempt is alleged in

¶33

respect of the direction of learned Single Judge in the order dated 21.02.2024, whereby the respondents are directed not to relieve the petitioners if they are still rendering their service in respondent No.3-Society against the vacancies, subject to filling up of those vacant posts through proper recruitment process.

¶34

When inquired about the status of service of the petitionerscomplainant, it was fairly stated by learned advocate Mr. Jagdish Shastri for the complainant that earlier the petitioners were relieved however, they are taken back into service and presently they are in service of respondent No.3.

¶35

In that view, the commission of contempt of the directions of learned Single Judge as above does not arise. The contempt is hardly maintainable.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:37462-DB CCC No. 855 of 2024

¶38

It is disposed of as not surviving since the complainantpetitioners are in service.

¶39

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is disposed of.

¶40

Learned advocate for the complainant, however, submits that

¶41

they have the grievance to the effect that the respondent-employer is not permitting to sign the muster roll.

¶42

This aspect cannot be in the domain of present directions which are brought under the contempt. It will be open for the complainant to make a representation to the respondents in this regard and the respondents shall ensure that the muster roll reflects the presence of each of the petitioners for the period they have discharged the duties.

¶43

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶45

DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Geeta S Challagidad v. Sri. P Manivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta S Challagidad v. Sri. P Manivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Giriyayya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Samith Loyal Dsouza Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D. Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayan Bhairu Sawant Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs Sri Naveen Kumar S

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka