Mr C B Purushothamma Vs Mr Umashankar — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr C B Purushothamma Vs Mr Umashankar — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the contempt petition was disposed of as not surviving once compliance was shown, with liberty reserved to the complainants to institute independent proceedings challenging the endorsement dated 04.01.2025 on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the accused and he punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for disobedience of the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23474/2018 (S-RES). +1 more

Court's answer

Since compliance of the Single Judge's directions stands established by the endorsement dated 04.01.2025, the contempt petition is liable to be disposed of as not surviving, and the petition is accordingly disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The order/endorsement dated 04.01.2025 issued by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, deciding the complainants' representation and rejecting the claim for equal pay for equal work, marks compliance of the learned Single Judge's directions.

Key takeaways

Observation: if the complainants have any grievance about the order/endorsement dated 04.01.2025 on merits, it will be open for them to institute appropriate independent proceedings to challenge the same, in respect of the merits of which this Court does not express any opinion.obiter¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt petition (CCC No. 838 of 2024) under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, brought by ten complainants against the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, alleging disobedience of the learned Single Judge's order dated 04.07.2023 in W.P.No.23474/2018 (S-RES), which had directed the competent authorities to take a decision afresh on the complainants' claim for equal pay for equal work, remitting the matter to the State Government. The respondent-State filed an affidavit of compliance recording the Under Secretary's order/endorsement dated 04.01.2025, by which the representation was decided and the equal-pay claim rejected; the complainants' advocate did not dispute service of these documents. Holding that the endorsement marked compliance of the Single Judge's directions, the Division Bench (Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice M.I.Arun, judgment per the Chief Justice, dated 05.02.2025) disposed of the contempt petition as not surviving, observing that the complainants remain free to challenge the endorsement on merits in appropriate independent proceedings, on which the Court expressed no opinion. No precedent was cited and no costs or monetary quantum featured.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5250-DB CCC No. 838 of 2024

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

PRESENT

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

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 838 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MR. C.B. PURUSHOTHAMMA S/O LATE BALASUNDARA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS KURAD BIDI, GANJAM SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

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

MR. S.G. YOGESH KUMAR S/O GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.261, SATHANURU VILLAGE MANDYA DISTRICT-571 402.

MR. MAYANNA N. S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NIMISHAMBA LAYOUT GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

MR. T.K. REVANNA S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS THIPPURU VILLAGE BILEKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 438.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5250-DB CCC No. 838 of 2024

MR. ANSAR PASHA S/O ABDUL KHADER AGEDA BOUT 44 YEARS NO.1767, AMBEDKAR BEEDI GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

MR. GANESH S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RAMPAL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

MR. MURALI S/O NAGA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RAMPAL ROAD GANDHINAGARA SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

MR. RAMU S/O AMAVASE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RAMPAL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

MR. BANNARI S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS MADESHWARA COLONY KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 427.

MR. NAGARAJU R. S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGEDABOUT 46 YEARS NO.1008, KALAMMANA GUDI BEEDI

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5250-DB CCC No. 838 of 2024

SRIRANGAPATTANA

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

…COMPLAINANTS

(BY SRI KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. UMASHANKAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

…ACCUSED

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

... PROFORMA RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

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 W.P.NO.23474/2018 (S-RES) IS SUBMITTED AT ANNEXUREA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5250-DB CCC No. 838 of 2024

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

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.

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, the order/endorsement dated 04.01.2025 has been issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Bengaluru.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5250-DB CCC No. 838 of 2024

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.

Learned advocate for the complainants was served with the copy of the affidavit and the copy of the endorsement, the factum of which could not be disputed by.

The above decision marks compliance of the directions of learned Single Judge.

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

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

It is observed that if the complainants have any grievance about the aforesaid order/endorsement dated 04.01.2025 on merits, it will be open for them to institute appropriate independent

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5250-DB CCC No. 838 of 2024

proceedings to challenge the same in respect of merit of which,

however, this Court does not express any opinion.

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59