IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NOs. 1056 AND 1168 TO 1172 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. C.L. KESHAVAIAH (DECEASED) SON OF LOKKAIAH CHIKARAKALAGUD AND POST ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN – 573 116 2. K.C. KOTTRAPPA SON OF LATE CHANNABASAPPA RESIDENT OF KANDALAMAGE K KETHANKERE POST KANAKAUTE HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN-573 116.
3. D.C. RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA DUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST ARASIKRE TALUK HASSAN-573 116.
4. M.N. HANUME GOWDA SON OF NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT HUDALAPURA KUNDUR POST CHANARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116.
5. K.S. BASAVARAJ SON OF NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DODDAYANAGANOLU ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN -573 116.
6. CHANDRE GOWDA T.N. SON OF NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDAKARDE KUNDUR POST DANDINAGARAHALLI HOBLI CHANARAYAPATNA DISTRICT HASSAN-573 116.
... COMPLAINANTS (BY SMT. LAKSHMI G., ADVOCATE COMPLAINANT No.1 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.07.2019) AND:
G. KUMARA SWAMY AGED 55 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.
VITC BUILDING KASTURBA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. ... ACCUSED THESE CONTEMPT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE CONGNIZANCE OF THE ACT OF THE CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED AND TO PASS THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NOs.31783 TO 31788 OF 2017 (S-REG) AS ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED AND DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER OF THIS COURT ANNEXURE-A.
THESE CONTEMPT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.31783 to 31788 of 2017 has been disobeyed. In terms of the said order, learned Single Judge has held in para No.8 as follows:
“8. In the light of the above, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent – Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioners for regularization, in terms of the order dated 18.07.2012 issued by this Court in W.P. Nos.10745-10756/2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the representation given by the petitioners are not available with the respondent–Corporation, the memorandum of these writ petitions may be treated as a representation by the petitioners.”
2. Thereafter, complainants made respective representations to the accused on 06.03.2019. Even as on date since the same have not been considered, the instant petitions are filed.
3. Learned counsel for the complainants contends that there is a direction to the accused to consider the representations and non-consideration of the same has led to violation of the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. On hearing learned counsel, we do not find that any contempt has been committed by the accused. The first sentence in para No.8 of the order would indicate that the second respondent – accused was directed to consider the representations of the complainants within a period of three months from 08.02.2019. The second sentence would read that if the representation given by the petitioners therein were not available with the respondent – Corporation, the memorandum of the writ petitions may be treated as representations. There are two contradictory directions given in the very same paragraph of the order. The first is a direction to consider the representation. The second sentence is pertaining to absence of the representation itself. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not an order that is capable of compliance.
Hence, these petitions are disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sma