IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NOS.1127-1141 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA BANAKAR SON OF PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS TEACHER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL VIDYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
2. M.B. SHIVANANDA SON OF BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS TEACHER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL VIDYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
3. SRI SOMASHEKHAR NARAYANI SON OF VENKANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS TEACHER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL VIDYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
4. SRI SHIVAPPA TEVARI SON OF RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TEACHER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL VIDYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
5. SRI LAXMAN AJJER SON OF BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS TEACHER, M.H.S. HIGH SCHOOL HANUMANAMATTI RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
6. SRI SHAMBHULINGAPPA BALLERI SON OF BASAVANNEPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS TEACHER, R.R.G.H.S COMPOSITE JUNIOR RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
7. SRI GANESHAPPA D SON OF DEVENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS TEACHER, SHRI RANGANATH SWAMI COMPOSITE JUNIOR COLLEGE HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
8. SRI SHIVAPUTRAPPA SHIDENUR SON OF MANABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS TEACHER, S.V.S. HIGH SCHOOL ABULUR, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
9. NAGAPPA HOSALLI SON OF BHARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TEACHER, S.V.S HIGH SCHOOL ABULUR, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
10. JAYADEVAPPA GUDAGUR SON OF BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS TEACHER, C.B.S. HIGH SCHOOL CHALAGERI, RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
11. SMT. RENUKA PUJAR DAUGHTER OF BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS TEACHER, S.K. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL RATTIHALLI, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
12. MOHAMMAD JAFARKHAN LODI SON OF HUSSAIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS TEACHER, ANGLO URDUL HIGH SCHOOL RATTIHALLI HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
13. SHAJROON BANU DAUGHTER OF ABDUL SAMAD AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS TEACHER, ANGLO URDU HIGH SCHOOL RATTIHALLI, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
14. VIJAY HOTIMUDAKANNANAVAR SON OF BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS TEACHER, P.V.S. COMP. JR. COLLEGE CHIKKENUR, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
15. RUDRAPPA AVALAGERI SON OF ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS TEACHER, DURGAD HIGH SCHOOL HAUNBHAVI, HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 111.
...COMPLAINANTS (BY SMT:ANANYA PRANEETH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI S.R. UMASHANKAR SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MAJOR SIDDALINGAIAH S. HIREMAT COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DHARWAD-580 001.
3. SRI ANDANAPPA WADAGERI DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAVERI-581 110.
...ACCUSED THESE CCCs 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 INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM SUITABLY FOR THEIR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.38904-38918 OF 2010 (S-RES) AS PER ANNEXURE-D BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
***** THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos.38904- 38918 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms whereof, the petitioners were permitted to make representation and on such representation being made by the petitioners, the respondents were directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. It is stated that the representation was made on 14.11.2018. That an endorsement has been issued in terms of Annexure-F dated 13.03.2019. However, no benefits have been given to the petitioners.
4. On hearing the complainants’ Counsel, we do not find any merits in these petitions. The direction of the learned Single Judge was to consider the representation. The same has been considered by an appropriate order in terms of Annexure-F. The consequence of the said order is not within the domain of the contempt Court.
In view of the representation being considered, we do not find any grounds to proceed further. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-