Disposed¶40

Sri. Muniraju v. Dr. Shalini Rajneesh

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2025CCC/1074/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No.1074 of 2023; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; civil contempt petition closed; Section 20 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 one-year limitation; condonation of delay 610 days Section 5 Limitation Act; willful disobedience of order dated 12.02.2021 in W.P.No.3010/2021 (S-RES); S.Tirupati Rao v. Lingamaiah 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764; Article 215 Constitution; retired BES PU College employees; K. Somashekar; Venkatesh Naik T; decided 23.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relied-upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao v. Lingamaiah (paras 52-53), there is no substance to consider I.A.No.1/2024 for condonation of the 610 days' delay; accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. ¶40

Sri. Muniraju Vs Dr. Shalini Rajneesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 610 days in filing the contempt petition ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1/2024). +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition does not survive for consideration, since Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 permits no initiation of contempt proceedings beyond one year from the alleged contempt notwithstanding condonation being sought; the contempt petition is hereby closed.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition No.1074 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Coram: Justices K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T; oral order per K. Somashekar, J.), dated 23.01.2025. Complainants Sri Muniraju and Sri V Y Papaiah, retired employees of BES PU College, sought initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution against four accused — the Principal Secretary (Primary and Secondary Education), the Director of Pre University Education, the Accountant General (Karnataka) (Entitlement and Accounts) and the State of Karnataka (Higher Education) — for deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 12.02.2021 of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3010/2021 (S-RES). I.A.No.1/2024 sought condonation of 610 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Holding that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 bars initiation of contempt proceedings beyond one year from the alleged contempt, and relying on S.Tirupati Rao v. Lingamaiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 (paras 52-53), the Court found no substance to condone the delay, dismissed I.A.No.1/2024 and closed the contempt petition.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1074 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O PUTTAERPPA AGED 65 YEARS RETIRED PEON BES PU COLLEGE JAYANAGARA, 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560082 Digitally signed R/AT VASUDEVAPURA by SUMATHY KANNAN KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD Location: HIGH TARALU POST COURT OF BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560082.

¶9

SRI V Y PAPAIAH S/O M YALLAPPA AGED 64 YEARS RETIRED WATCHMEN BES PU COLLEGE JAYANAGAR, 4^TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560082 R/AT VADERAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU – 560097.

¶10

…COMPLAINANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA R - ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023

¶13

AND:

¶14

DR. SHALINI RAJNEESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001.

¶15

MRS. C. SHIKHA THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560003.

¶16

SRI R NARESH THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (ENTITLEMENT AND ACCOUNTS) PARK HOUSE BANGALORE - 560001.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001.

¶18

…ACCUSED

¶19

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G – AGA)

¶20

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 INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY WILLFULLY AND DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3010/2021(S-RES) AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶27

This contempt proceeding is initiated by the complainants against respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3010/2021 (S-RES) dated 12.02.2021 as per Annexure-A.

¶28

Learned counsel Sri Padmanabha R for complainants is present. Learned AGA Smt Namitha Mahesh B.G who is present is directed to accept notice for respondent/accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶29

I.A.No.1/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condontion of delay of 610 days in filing the contempt petition. However, this petition is filed after lapse of several months. It is relevant to refer

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023

¶32

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which

¶33

reads as under:

¶34

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.

¶35

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs.

¶36

Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in paragraphs 52 and 53 observed as under:

¶37

‘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.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023

¶39

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.’

¶40

Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the 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.1/2024 for condonation of delay and the present contempt petition do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. This contempt petition is hereby closed.

¶41

SD/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶44

Sri. Muniraju v. Dr. Shalini Rajneesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muniraju v. Dr. Shalini Rajneesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Krishnappa H.M. Vs Sri. M. Mahadeva Prasad

Sarvojana Seva Trust Vs Sri Srinivas IAS

Smt. Saraswathi v Vs Mr. Ravi Kumar M.R.

Sreekanta Murthy S K Vs Smt G Sathyavathi

Sri Balakrishna N Vs Sri Narayanaswamy

M S Deepak Vs M S Amarnath