IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.965 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRA SON OF M.V. UGRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKMEN CATEGORY-1, PRESENTLY WORKING AT:
KHDC LTD., BANAHATTI, PREPARATORY PROCESS UNIT, JAMAKANDI TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI SUNDARESHAN H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI RAMCHANDRA MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICER, NO.1, PRIYADARSHINI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, …COMPLAINANT TANK BUND ROAD, HALSOOR, BENGALURU-560 042.
(BY SRI B.S. MURALI, ADVOCATE) ... ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.14700 OF 2018 DATED 11.12.2018 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is listed today for framing of charges.
The accused is present in the Court.
2. This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 11.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14700 of 2018, has been disobeyed. In terms whereof, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. Since the same has not been done, the present contempt petition is filed.
3. A counter Affidavit is filed by the respondent - accused tendering unconditional apology for the delay in complying with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is stated that the accused took charge as a Managing Director on 16.08.2018, and therefore had to take stock of the facts involved. Further, the office had to be shifted from Bengaluru to Hubbali, except the Accounts Department. No General Transfers were effected and many employees had to be transferred. The Government had to be approached for many of the activities of the Corporation. Under these circumstances, there was a delay in complying with the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent–accused has also issued an endorsement dated 23.08.2019 in compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge. For the reasons assigned, the delay in complying with the order of the learned Single Judge is condoned. Even though the matter is listed for framing of charges, in view of the unconditional apology tendered and in the facts and circumstances involved, it cannot be said that there is a willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge. To some extent, it was beyond the control of the respondent -accused. Under these circumstances, we do not find it appropriate to proceed further in the matter. Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ