Disposed¶5

Mr Navinaksha v. Mr Umashankar

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2025CCC/837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Court Act, 1971 Ss. 11 & 12; Article 215 Constitution of India; civil contempt; disobedience of Single Judge order dated 04.07.2023 in WP No.5554/2020 (S-RES); equal pay for equal work; remitted to State Government; affidavit of compliance; order/endorsement dated 12.09.2024 by Commissioner, City Corporation, Mangaluru; representation rejected; compliance found; contempt petition disposed of as not surviving; liberty to file independent proceedings; High Court of Karnataka Division Bench; Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria; Justice M.I. Arun; CCC No. 837 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

No punishment imposed; the contempt petition was disposed of as not surviving upon finding of compliance, with liberty reserved to the complainants to institute independent proceedings to challenge the endorsement dated 12.09.2024 on merits.

Mr Navinaksha Vs Mr Umashankar — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the accused (Mr. Umashankar, Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development) and he punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act for disobedience of the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in WP No.5554/2020 (S-RES). +1 more

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The endorsement dated 12.09.2024 decides the representation of the complainants and, for the reasons stated therein, their claim for equal pay for equal work stands rejected.

¶3

Key takeaways

The decision embodied in the order/endorsement dated 12.09.2024 marks compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 04.07.2023.ratio¶4
Compliance having been effected, the contempt petition is liable to be disposed of as not surviving, and it is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶4
If the complainants have any grievance against the order/endorsement dated 12.09.2024 on merits, it will be open to them to institute appropriate independent proceedings to challenge it on merits; the Court expresses no opinion on those merits.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt petition (CCC No. 837 of 2024) under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, by eleven complainants alleging disobedience by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, of the Single Judge's order dated 04.07.2023 in WP No.5554/2020 (S-RES), whereby respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to take a decision on the complainants' claim of equal pay for equal work, the matter having been remitted to the State Government for fresh decision in accordance with law. On the affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent-State showing that, pursuant to the order, the Commissioner, City Corporation, Mangaluru issued an order/endorsement dated 12.09.2024 deciding the representation and rejecting the equal-pay claim, the Division Bench (Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun) held that the endorsement marked compliance of the learned Single Judge's directions and disposed of the contempt petition as not surviving, observing that any grievance against the endorsement dated 12.09.2024 on merits may be agitated in appropriate independent proceedings, on which the Court expressed no opinion.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5163-DB CCC No. 837 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 837 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. NAVINAKSHA S/O DAMODAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R NO. 9-85/38

¶9

KANKANADY POST, YEKKUR MANGALURU-575 002.

¶10

MR. YASWANTH S/O MONAPPA POOJARY

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D.NO.23-11-984/1

¶13

SHANTHA ALVA COMPOUND ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575 001.

¶14

MR. KESHAVA A. S/O APPAYYA MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶15

D.NO. 1-313, RAMALKATTE HOUSE NEAR WATER TANK, THUMBE POST BANTWALA TALUK -574 143

¶16

MR. SUNIL S/O LATE BUBHA POOJARY

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5163-DB CCC No. 837 of 2024

¶18

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D.NO. 3-67/1, KANNADA GUDDA HOUSE KANNUR POST, MANGALURU-575 007.

¶19

MR. HARISH S/O MR. JARDHAN NAIK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D.NO. 2-186/1 JALAGUDA BAJAL KATTAPUNI MANGALORE-575 002.

¶20

MR. NAGESH S/O MANJAPPA SALIAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RAMA MAINTRY NIVAS BAJAI BETTAGUDDA MANGALURU-4.

¶21

MR. YASHAVANTHA S/O RAMACHNADRA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PILIKUMERI HOUSE KADUPU POST KATTUPUNI MANGALURU-575 005.

¶22

MR. MOHANADASA ALVA S/O SRINIVASA ALVA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DEBBELI BAKIMAR HOUSE HAREUAL POST MANGALURU TALUK DHAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 199.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5163-DB CCC No. 837 of 2024

¶24

MR. MOHANADAS JOGI S/O JANARDANA JOGI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS THIMPAI COLONY SAKTHI NAGAR MANGALURU DHAKSHINA KANNADA-595 016.

¶25

MR. SURESH GATTY S/O MR. BOUJA GATTE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MANTHRUNILAYA D.NO. 3-229/14 MUNDOLI, MUNNUR POST KUTHAR-575 017.

¶26

MR. SHAMITH GODSON S/O LATE EMMANVEL GODWINSALING AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS KASHRI COMPOUND, KUCHIKAD ROAD KULASHEKARA, KALPANE-575 005

¶27

…COMPLAINANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

MR. UMASHANKAR PRNCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶31

…ACCUSED

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:5163-DB CCC No. 837 of 2024

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶35

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶37

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN AND PUNISH HIM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.5554/2020 (S-RES) IS SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶39

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:5163-DB CCC No. 837 of 2024

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

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

¶45

The only direction of learned Single Judge in his order dated 04.07.2023 was to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the competent authorities is to take decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners-complainants in respect of grant of equal pay for equal work. The matter was remitted to the State Government for taking decision afresh in accordance with law.

¶46

In response to the contempt petition, the affidavit of compliance came to be filed by the respondent-State, attention of the court to which was invited by learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, more particularly to paragraph 6 thereof, which mentions that pursuant to the order, the order/endorsement dated 12.09.2024 has been issued by the Commissioner, City Corporation, Mangaluru.

¶47

The said endorsement decides the representation of the complainants and for the reasons stated therein the claim for equal pay for equal work has been rejected.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:5163-DB CCC No. 837 of 2024

¶50

4. The above decision marks compliance of the directions

¶51

of learned Single Judge. The contempt petition is liable to be disposed of as not surviving.

¶52

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶53

It is observed that if the complainants have any grievance about the aforesaid order/endorsement dated 12.09.2024 on merits, it will be open for them to institute appropriate independent proceedings to challenge the same in respect of merit, which however, this Court does not express any opinion.

¶54

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶56

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mr Navinaksha v. Mr Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Navinaksha v. Mr Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Attur Krishnagiri Kalkuda Daivasthana Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Robo Silicon Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rekha Vs Sri.Santosh Kumar

Mr C B Purushothamma Vs Mr Umashankar

Mr Jagadisha Gatty Vs Mr Umashankar

Smt Divya K C Vs Kiran Chandrashekar