IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NO. 2481 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI B. M. RAJANNA SON OF MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS HRD DISTRICT CONSULTANT SWATCH BHARATH MISSION-GRAMIN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MARUTHINAGARA, NEAR OLD KEB, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN, CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRIT-561208 ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. M. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND SRI GURUDUTT HEGDE, I.A.S. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKABALLAPURA-561208 (BY SRI B. J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE) ... ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.47893 OF 2018, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 2.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.47893 of 2018, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the said order, stay as prayed for, was granted by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that notwithstanding the stay granted, the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to continue in the post of Human Resource Development Consultant in Chikkaballapur.
3. An affidavit has been filed by the accused indicating that the complainant has been granted a stay order in Writ Petition No.47893 of 2018. However, there is no order to be complied with. The same is countered by the complainant’s counsel by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 with reference to paragraphs 5, 8 and 9. A reference is also made to the observation in paragraph 5 of the order wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order”.
4. On considering the same, we are of the view that the same is against the interest of the complainant. The specific case of the accused is that an order of stay has been granted and no direction was issued. Therefore, following the said judgment, the contempt Court cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings.
The prayer sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent. The same has not been granted. What has been granted is only stay. Therefore, we find that no contempt has been committed. The proceedings are dropped. However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to obtain such orders as he deems fit.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA