IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NOS.1058 AND 1085 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KAMPALARANGA SARVAJANIKA VIDYARATHI NILAYA SAMSTHE (REGD.) TUMAKURNAHALLI, MOLKALMUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT NOW AT CHITRADURGA-577 501. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MRS. O. PALAMMA AGED 65 YEARS.
2. SRI. KAMPALARANGA MAHASWAMY PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CHITRADURGA-577 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS IN-CHARGE PRINCIPAL MR. VASANTH AGED MAJOR. ... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. M.C. SHOBHA AGED MAJOR WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHANNAKESHAVAPURA EXTENSION OPP: BHIMAPPA NAYAKA ROAD CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) 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 INITIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND PUNISH HER FOR FLOUTING AND DISOBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED ON 22.04.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NOS.7484 OF 2019 AND 13250 OF 2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
THESE CONTEMPT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These contempt petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7484 of 2019 and 13250 of 2019 has been disobeyed. In terms of the said order, the respondent No.2 therein was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner-Institution within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Since, the same was not done, the instant petitions have been filed.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the accused enclosing Annexures-R1 to R4. In the endorsement vide Annexure-R4 dated 24.07.2019, it is indicated that the accused has no authority to appoint in-charge Principal to the petitioner-Institution. That it is respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge alone that has the authority in law to do so. An unconditional apology is also tendered for the delay in complying with the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. On considering the reasons, we are of the view that the same constitutes sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, the delay in complying with the order of the learned Single Judge is condoned. Annexure-R4 would indicate that the accused has no authority in law to pass the order. It is the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge, who has authority in law to do so. In the absence of any authority, we do not find that proceedings for contempt could be proceed with against the accused.
Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE ST