Karnataka High Court
Mr Velu B Sapper vs Lt Col Palani S on 25 June, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
C.C.C. NO. 2219/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
MR. VELU B. SAPPER
ENGR, ART, 15323081 H,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
CHIEF INSTRUCTOR WORKSHOP,
MEG & CENTER,
PIN-900493,
C/O. 56, APO, BANGALORE. ... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI MAHESH L., ADV.)
AND:
1. LT. COL. PALANI S
THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,
RECORDS MADRAS ENGINEER GROUP,
PIN-900493, C/O. APO,
BANGALORE-560042.
2. BRIGADIER R. K. SACHEDEVA
THE COMMANDANT,
MADRAS ENGINEER GROUP (MEG) & CENTRE,
PIN:900493, C/O. APO,
BANGALORE-560042. ... ACCUSED
(BY SRI N. KUMAR, CGC FOR A-1 & A-2)
2
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTED
THE ACTS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT
AND TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P. NO.10988/2017 DATED 05.04.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAGHVENDRA
S. CHAUHAN J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. Velu B. Sapper, the complainant, has filed the present contempt petition ostensibly on the ground that by order dated 05.04.2017, this Court had stayed the movement order issued by the accused, whereby the complainant was being transferred from Bengaluru to Jammu and Kashmir. The complainant submits that despite the stay of the impugned order, and in spite of having submitted the representations dated 06.04.2017, 12.4.2017, 27.4.2017, and 15.05.2017, the said order was never complied with by the accused. Therefore, a clear contempt is made out.
3
2. On the other hand, Mr. N. Kumar, the learned CGC, submits that the contempt petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of eight months. By order dated 31.12.2017, the complainant has been discharged, after having completed his service with the Army. Moreover, the W.P.No.10988/2017 was withdrawn by the complainant on 05.01.2018. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court, on 05.04.2017, has merged with the final order dated 05.01.2018. Hence, the question of committing contempt of the interim order, which no longer exists in the eyes of the law, would not even arise.
3. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was no inordinate delay in filing the contempt petition by the complainant. For by order dated 30.05.2017, the complainant was informed that he should approach the MEG & Centre for needful redressal of the grievance raised in his letter, as it would not be possible for the Commanding Officer to comply with the order dated 4 05.04.2017. Moreover, even by letter dated 24.10.2017, he was directed to submit his pension papers in a particular manner. Therefore, it is the accused, who have kept the complainant's hope alive that the order dated 05.04.2017, would be duly complied with. Lastly, even in their counter- affidavit submitted before this Court, the accused persons have given an assurance that "the complainant's salary, allowances and other benefits for the period from 05.04.2017 to 31.12.2017, would be considered in accordance with law". Thus, according to the learned counsel for the complainant, contempt continues to be committed by the accused persons.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
5. Admittedly, the interim order dated 05.04.2017 merged with the final order dated 05.01.2018, when the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Therefore, the order of stay was continued between 5 05.04.2017, and 05.01.2018. Surprisingly, the complainant did not approach this Court from 05.04.2017 till 05.01.2018, i.e. for a period of eight months. Instead, the complainant continued to submit representations before the accused as mentioned above. Even if an assurance had been given by the accused by order dated 30.05.2017, nothing prevented the complainant from rushing to this Court from June, 2017 till December 2017, and filing a contempt petition in order to press the implementation of the order dated 05.04.2017.
6. The order dated 24.10.2017 does not come to the rescue of the complainant. For, the said order is based on an application, dated 30.09.2017, where the crux of the application is to process the pension papers. Although, incidentally there is mention that the order passed by this Court needs to be implemented, interestingly, even after receiving the order dated 24.10.2017, the complainant has waited for one and a half years before filing the contempt 6 petition. Subsequent to this interim period, on 05.01.2018, the complainant himself has withdrawn the writ petition filed by him. Since the contempt is continuous one, it has to be seen, whether the contempt continues on the date when the case is finally argued.
7. Since the interim order has already merged with the final order, obviously, as on today, there is no contempt that is being committed by the accused. Even if an assurance is given by the accused that the petitioner's salary, allowance and other benefits for the period from 05.04.2017 to 31.12.2017, will be considered in accordance with law, non-implementation of such an assurance would give raise to a fresh cause of action to the complainant. Even non-implementation of such an assurance would not give raise to contempt, since the undertaking has not been given before this Court. It is merely an assurance given by the accused to the complainant. Thus, it is an assurance between the two parties, and cannot be interpreted as an 7 undertaking before this Court. If such an assurance is not carried by the accused persons, the complainant would certainly have a fresh cause of action. But even then, he is required to pursue the legal remedies, which are available to him in accordance with law.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that no contempt is made out. The contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE VP