Dismissed

Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies v. Sri Shivappa Kuri

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026WA/1010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by KFCSC challenging quashing of a disciplinary charge (No.10) against a retired purchase officer regarding alleged maize procurement shortfall at Hadagali. Division Bench found Lokayukta investigation disproved the allegation and affirmed the Single Judge's order, granting six weeks for compliance and closing the contempt petition with liberty to reopen if amounts unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; 6 weeks granted to comply with Single Judge's directions; contempt case closed with liberty to reopen on default.

Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Vs Sri Shivappa Kuri — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.453 OF 2024

¶8

IN W.A. No.1010 OF 2024:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED No.16/1, MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHANAGAR

¶11

BENGALURU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶12

2 . THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED DISTRICT OFFICE, BELLARY-583 101 REP. BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 . SRI. SHIVAPPA KURI S/O BHEEMAPPA KURI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED PURCHASE OFFICER KFCSC, RESIDING AT No.3993/83 NANDA GOKULA 21^ST MAIN KUVEMPU NAGAR, MCC 'B' BLOCK

¶17

¶18

SHAMANUR ROAD NEAR MAVINTOPU HOSPITAL DAVANAGERE-577 004

¶19

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶20

3 . THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052

¶21

4 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTISTOREYED BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. J.M. JAYADEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEDA MURTHY M.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2 & R3; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.14735/2018 DATED 7^TH DECEMBER 2023, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶25

IN CCC No.453 OF 2024:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SHIVAPPA KURI S/O BHEEMAPPA KURI

¶28

¶29

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RTD. PURCHASE OFFICER, KFCSC R/AT. 3993/83, NANDAGOKULA 21^ST MAIN, KUVEMPU NAGAR MCC, 'B' BLOCK SHAMANUR ROAD NEAR MAVINTOPU HOSPITAL DAVANAGERE-577 004

¶30

...COMPLAINANT

¶31

(BY SRI. J.M. JAYADEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEDA MURTHY M.V., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶32

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA

¶33

BENGALURU-560 001

¶34

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶35

2 . SMT. KANAGAVALLI M., I.A.S. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052

¶36

3 . SRI. M.V. CHANDRAKANTH, I.P.S. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., No.16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA VASANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 052

¶37

4 . SRI. B. PRAKASH DISTRICT MANAGER THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED DISTRICT OFFICE, BELLARY-583 101

¶38

¶39

5 . SMT. USHA RANI THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶40

...ACCUSED

¶41

(BY SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & A2; SRI. H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR A3; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR A5; A4 -SERVED)

¶42

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING NOT COMPLIED WITH TIME BOUND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.14735/2018 VIDE ORDER 7^TH DECEMBER 2023 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT HAVING NOT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT.

¶43

THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶45

¶46

CAV JUDGMENT

¶47

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶48

This appeal is filed by the Karnataka Food and Civil

¶49

Supplies Corporation Limited against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.12.2023, passed in W.P. No.14735/2018 (S-RES).

¶50

We have heard Shri. H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing of the appellant in the Writ Appeal and for accused No.3 in the Contempt of Court Case, Shri. J.M. Jayadevaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in the Writ Appeal and for the complainant in the Contempt of Court Case, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in the Writ Appeal and for accused No.5 in the Contempt of Court Case.

¶51

After considering the charges framed against the writ petitioner and the findings of the Lokayukta, which undertook the investigation under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the learned Single Judge

¶52

¶53

found that the allegation against the writ petitioner was completely unfounded. The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta as well as the Government were considered by the learned Single Judge and it was found that it is only if the main allegation regarding shortfall of maize or irregularity in procurement is established against the petitioner that the supplementary allegation of not collecting relevant documents require an enquiry. On these grounds, the memo of charges insofar as it relates to charge No.10 as against the writ petitioner was quashed. It was further directed that the writ petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, which shall be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶54

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made available a fully translated copy of the judgment with translation of the extractions in vernacular.

¶55

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the report of the Lokayukta, specifically found that the writ petitioner had failed to collect the required

¶56

¶57

documents from the farmers while procuring maize. It was found that the said conduct of the writ petitioner was in violation of the Circular dated 12.11.2008. It is submitted that this is an independent charge as against the writ petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be enquired into.

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner would, on the other hand, contend that the entire investigation was undertaken by the Karnataka Lokayukta pursuant to a request made by the Secretary, department of Food and Civil Supplies, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru, dated 19.03.2011. The request specifically was to conduct an investigation into the irregularities alleged to have taken place in the purchase of maize during the year 2008-2009 under the Government of India Sponsored Project in Bellary District, by the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

¶59

The Karnataka Lokayukta took up the investigation and submitted a comprehensive report dated 17.06.2013, which is marked as Annexure-B. The relevant

¶60

¶61

portion of the report as regards the purchase of maize at the Hadagali Purchase Centre is extracted by the learned Single Judge in the judgment. It was specifically found that there was no error or irregularity in the purchase of the maize and there was no shortage of maize or misutilisation of the stock whatsoever.

¶62

It is stated that the allegation with regard to

¶63

Hadagali Purchase Center was specifically that during the year 2008-09, 38,007.25 quintals of maize was collected in the Hadagali Maize Collection Centre and 37,245.43 quintals have been released and there is a deficiency of remaining 761.82 quintals and the value of which has been misappropriated. However, the Lokayukta, after an enquiry conducted found as follows:

¶64

"7.03. Opinion:- Based on the detailed report and documents submitted by the respondent, it is found that the respondent purchased 38,002-90 quintals and took them into stock. The maize purchased in this way was sent to the Huivanahadagali and Hospet State Warehouses in the amount of 30,58905 quintals and 7,418-20 (30,589-05+7,418-2038,007-25) quintals respectively. It is not found

¶65

¶66

that any kind of misappropriation of maize has been found."

¶67

The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that

¶68

since the allegations raised against the purchase of maize at the Hadagali Maize Collection Centre is specifically found not proved by the Lokayukta, the action taken to issue a charge memo as against the writ petitioner was completely unwarranted.

¶69

Having considered the contentions advanced and having perused the documents produced along with the writ petition, we are unable to find any material to differ from the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the contentions raised in the appeal. Accordingly,

¶70

(i) The appeal is dismissed .

¶71

(ii) The appellants are given 6 weeks further time to see that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are complied with.

¶72

(iii) The Contempt of Court Case is closed . However, if the amounts as directed by the learned Single Judge

¶73

¶74

are not disbursed within a period of 6 weeks from today, the complainant is free to seek reopening of the contempt and take further action in the contempt of Court Case.

¶75

Ordered accordingly.

¶76

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶78

Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies v. Sri Shivappa Kuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies v. Sri Shivappa Kuri

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

Sri. Shafeeq Ahamed Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

M/S Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Limited Vs Union of India

Smt Hemavathi Vs the Joint Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangh Ltd.

M/S Shree Electronics Vs M/S Bpl Limited

J.S. Bharath Vs Smt. M.M Latha @ Dyna