IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.1485 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI OM PRAKASH SON OF LATE SUKAI RAUT, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.251, 3RD FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, PAVAMANA NAGAR, KEMBATHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, GOTTIGERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 083.
... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI OM PRAKASH, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
SRI BASAVARAJ SWAMY REGISTRAR NITIE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING (NITIE) (UNDER MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, VIHAR LAKE, P.O. NITIE, MUMBAI-400087, REPRESENTED BY ITS – REGISTRAR.
... ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1981 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3213 OF 2018, PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-A, WITH A VIEW OF UPHOLD THE PRESTIGE, STATUS AND DIGNITY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND TO SET A BENCHMARK AGAINST ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the Complainant - party-in-person.
2. This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 12.04.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.3213 of 2018, has been disobeyed. In terms of the said order, a direction was issued to the respondent – institute to provide an opportunity to the Complainant to participate in the next campus selection, by including the diploma certificate holders also in the list of candidates available for employment. Since the said order is disobeyed, the instant petition is filed.
3. The complainant – party-in-person submits that when he approached the respondent-institute, he was intimated that they have filed a review petition. The complainant finds it is as an abuse of the process of the Court. On being questioned, he submits that the next campus selection is likely to be scheduled during September-October’2019. Hence, until and unless the campus selection is conducted, we do not find any ground to proceed further. So far as the review petition is concerned, the respondents are entitled in law to maintain the said review petition and it is not an abuse of the court process.
Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ