Shri. Akbar S/O Murtuja Jamadar Vs Miss v Tara — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Shri. Akbar S/O Murtuja Jamadar Vs Miss v Tara — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the complainant. Although the Court was inclined to impose exemplary costs, in view of the complainant's memo withdrawing the complaint, the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn (the operative sentence runs from paragraph 60, 'the present contempt petition is dismissed as', into paragraph 61, 'withdrawn.'); the request for liberty to make a fresh representation for delivery of posts was refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent postal authorities wilfully disobeyed the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in W.P. No.107586/2024, attracting punishment under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution. +2 more

Court's answer

Paragraph No.8 of the learned Single Judge's order dated 20.12.2024 merely placed on record the Court's opinion as to the manner of delivery of post; and as regards paragraph No.9, nothing remained to be complied with by the postal authorities, since as on the date of that order itself the postal articles addressed to the complainant had already been returned. The alleged disobedience therefore did not survive.

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record, the present contempt petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court; the petitioner is misusing the Court's process with malafide objectives of holding government/statutory authorities to ransom, and the contempt proceedings are liable to be dismissed by imposing appropriate exemplary costs.

Key takeaways

The grievance of the complainant having been adequately adjudicated in the writ proceedings as well as in the present contempt proceedings, the question of giving any liberty to the complainant to make a fresh representation, as sought in the memo filed that day, does not arise.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No.100056 of 2025) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging wilful disobedience by postal authorities of the order dated 20.12.2024 in W.P. No.107586/2024 concerning delivery of postal articles. The Division Bench (S G Pandit and C M Poonacha, JJ.; order per C M Poonacha, J.) held that paragraph 8 of the Single Judge's order was merely an opinion recorded as to the manner of delivery of post, and that as regards paragraph 9 nothing remained to be complied with, since the articles addressed to the complainant (an RTI activist) for 23.11.2024 to 29.11.2024 and 04.12.2024 had been returned per the Post Office Guidelines (uncollected articles beyond seven days) even prior to the order dated 20.12.2024. The Court found the contempt petition to be a gross abuse of its process, the petitioner misusing the process with malafide objectives of holding government/statutory authorities to ransom, and observed it was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Upon the complainant's memo withdrawing the complaint, the Court held that liberty to make a fresh representation did not arise as the grievance stood adequately adjudicated, and, though inclined to impose costs, dismissed the contempt petition as withdrawn. Decided 03-04-2025.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100056 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SHRI AKBAR S/O. MURTUJA JAMADAR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. RTI ACTIVIST AND SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. BHAGYALAXMI NAGAR, CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201.

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MISS V TARA

AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, R/O. POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTH KARNATAKA REGION, OPPOSITE AKKANA BALAGA KALYANA MADAPA MALMADDI, DHARWAD-580001.

SHRI VENKATESH BADAMI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, CHIKODI DIVISION OFFICE, BASAV CIRCLE, CHIKODI-591201,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

DIST. BELAGAVI (KARNATAKA).

SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O. MARUTI KURLE, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HEAD POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE, BASAV CIRCLE CHIKODI-591201, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI (KARNATAKA).

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. PUNISH THE CONTEMNOR’S/ ACCUSED’S NO.1 TO 3, FOR WILFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 20-12-2024, PASSED IN W.P. NO.107586/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B. COST OF THIS CONTEMPT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED/ AWARDED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The present contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971¹ , R/w Article 215 of Constitution of India, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024, passed in W.P. No.107586/2024.

The complainant, filed Writ Petition No.107586/2024, seeking for various directions in the nature of mandamus to the postal authorities with regard to improper delivery of postal articles by the said authorities. The complainant, who claims to be an “RTI Activist and Social Worker” by occupation, has alleged that communications addressed by him to various authorities by way of applications made under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005² , would be responded by various government authorities and the replies given by the said authorities were not appropriately delivered by the postal authorities.

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1971’

2 Hereinafter referred to as the R.I. Act

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

The postal authorities appeared before the learned Single Judge and placed on record that when deliveries are made to the petitioner, in his absence, the petitioner’s wife refused to take the same and has threatened the personnel visiting for delivery of the post and hence, the postal articles were taken back to the post office. However, despite intimation, the postal articles would not be collected. The postal authorities have further alleged adamant and unruly behavior of the petitioner, as also his wife in not receiving the postal articles, resulting in the postal authorities being constrained to take back the same.

The learned Single Judge considering the factual matrix of the matter disposed of the writ petition by opining at paragraph No.8 of the order dated 20.12.2024 that the postal articles shall be duly delivered to the petitioner and if on the date of delivery, registered post is not received by the petitioner or accepted by a relative of the petitioner, the postal authorities would be at liberty to take it back to the post office by leaving an intimation at the door of the petitioner to collect the same. Further, at paragraph No.9 of the order dated 20.12.2024, the learned Single Judge, has ordered that any

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

post that has come in the name of the petitioner from 23.11.2024 to 29.11.2024 and 04.12.2024 shall be delivered to the petitioner upon petitioner approaching the respondent authorities within 26.12.2024 in the office hours.

Alleging non-compliance of the alleged directions made in the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present contempt petition is filed.

The counter affidavit of one Sri.Siddappa S/o Maruti Kurle, Postmaster, Head Post Office, Chikkodi, is filed placing on record that the complainant is in the habit of writing unnecessary comments/notes on the back side of the postal acknowledgment card. A copy of one such postal acknowledgment card with the comments/notes made by the complainant, is produced as Annexure-R1 to the counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, various records have also been produced indicating that intimation regarding delivery of postal articles has been delivered.

Further, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the articles in the name of the complainant/petitioner from 23.11.2024 to 29.11.2024 and 04.12.2024 were not collected

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

by the complainant despite intimation having been delivered, having regard to the Post Office Guidelines issued by the Director General of Post, the articles which were not collected for more than seven days, were required to be returned and accordingly all the articles that were addressed to the petitioner/complainant between 23.11.2024 to 29.11.2024 and 04.12.2024, were returned prior to the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge.

It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that at paragraph No.8, the learned Single Judge has merely placed on record its opinion as to the manner of delivery of post. Further, nothing remains to be complied by the postal authorities regarding paragraph No.9 of the order of the learned Single Judge, since as on the date of the order itself the postal articles have been returned.

Having perused the material on record, it is abundantly clear that the present contempt petition is a gross abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner is misusing the process of this Court with malafide objectives of holding government/statutory authorities to ransom and the present

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

contempt proceedings are liable to be dismissed by imposing an appropriate exemplary costs.

At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant

files a memo, which reads as follows:

“Herein the memo on behalf of the complainant is as under;

The complainant is withdrawing the above complaint and undertakes to make fresh representation for delivery of posts.”

Sd/Place: Dharwad (Santosh P. Pojari) Date: 03.04.2025 Advocate for Complainant

Sd/(Akbar Samadar)

The grievance of the complainant having been adequately adjudicated in the writ proceedings as well as in the present contempt proceedings, question of giving any liberty to the complainant to make fresh representation as sought for in the memo filed this day does not arise.

In view of the aforementioned, although we are inclined to impose costs, in view of the memo filed by the

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5995-DB CCC No. 100056 of 2025

complainant, the present contempt petition is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

PMP

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35