Dismissed

Smt.Mahalakshmi K.M. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026CCC/1185/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge oral order dismissing a criminal contempt petition against Panchayat officials. Court held no merit in allegation of wilful disobedience regarding suspension extension, closing the complaint while reserving substantive relief against dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

The contempt complaint is closed; complainant may approach substantively if aggrieved by dismissal order.

Smt.Mahalakshmi K.M. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:492-DB CCC No. 1185 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1185 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI K.M. W/O MANJUNATHA H.L. D/O MAHIMA RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 2^ND CROSS ROAD

¶11

GAYATHRI AGRAHARA

¶12

BRAMHANARA LAYOUT JAKKASANDRA, NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123

¶13

…COMPLAINANT

¶14

(BY SRI G. KRISHNAMURHTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SUNDARESH G., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

¶20

SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O MANJUNATH

¶21

THE PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:492-DB CCC No. 1185 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

KULUVANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123

¶26

SRI MOHAN KUMAR S.S. S/O P. SHIVANNA THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KULUVANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123

¶27

SRI DHANANJAYA. M S/O LATE MALLAIAH M.G. THE SECRETARY KULUVANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123

¶28

SMT. BINDHU THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NELAMANGALA TALUK NELAMANGALA - 562 123

¶29

DR. ANURADHA K.N. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALURU RURAL ZILLA PANCHAYATH BEERASANDRA KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110

¶30

…ACCUSED

¶31

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R-1, SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.2 TO 4, SRI M.S. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.5, SRI M.S. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.6)

¶32

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.22260/2024 (S-RES).

¶33

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

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:492-DB CCC No. 1185 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶39

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22260/2024 (S-RES).

¶40

The operative part of the order indicates that the undertaking furnished by the accused for disposing of the enquiry proceedings was taken note of whereby, it was stated that the enquiry proceedings against the complainant would be disposed of within a period of four weeks. Further, the Court had also directed that if the enquiry is not completed within a period of four weeks, the respondent-authority shall re-consider the order of suspension.

¶41

The learned counsel for accused No.6 has filed an affidavit of compliance stating that accused No.4-Kuluvanahalli Gram Panchayat has extended the period of suspension in terms of the order dated 09.12.2024. Copy of the order has also been placed on record.

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:492-DB CCC No. 1185 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the interpretation in the said order and the two other documents on record, militate against the fact that any such order has been passed. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the letter dated 31.12.2024 sent by the Panchayat Development Officer, Kuluvanahalli Gram Panchayat to the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru Rural District Panchayat seeking guidance in the matter. The subject matter of the said letter reads as, "regarding the disciplinary action against Smt. Mahalakshmi K.M, Clerk cum Computer Operator, Kuluvanahalli Village Panchayat, requesting for appropriate direction and clear order to continue the suspension". He submits that since there is a request to continue suspension, the said letter must be read as a request for passing an order to continue the suspension, which would not be necessary if the order dated 09.12.2024 extending the suspension till completion of the enquiry proceedings was, in fact, passed.

¶45

We find no merit in the said contention.

¶46

A plain reading of the said letter indicates that the Panchayat Development Officer had requested for guidance regarding further

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:492-DB CCC No. 1185 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

proceedings considering the report that the complainant (Smt.Mahalakshmi, K. M), had not appeared in the enquiry proceedings on 07.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 and an undertaking had been given to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of four weeks. Insofar as conduct of enquiry is concerned, documents filed on record indicate that the report dated 04.10.2025 was submitted and a resolution for dismissal of the complainant was passed on 30.10.2025.

¶50

In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any proceedings for wilful disobedience of the orders as complained of are required to be initiated.

¶51

The complaint is accordingly closed. We, however, clarify that this order will not preclude the complainant from availing any substantive remedy, if aggrieved by the dismissal order.

¶52

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶54

KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt.Mahalakshmi K.M. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Mahalakshmi K.M. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pushpalatha Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Bhutharaja V.S Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Vision Profile Industries Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Sri Arasashetty P Vs Smt R Ramya

Sri. Dinesh M Vs M/S Provident Housing Ltd.

Sri.Thirumalesh C.A. Vs State of Karnataka