Karnataka High Court
Sri Harsha L vs Dr. S. Selva Kumar on 8 November, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
C.C.C. No.990/2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SRI HARSHA .L
S/O. LAKSHMAN .K
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.646, MITRALAYA,
18TH MAIN ROAD,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070. ... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. S. SELVA KUMAR
THE SECRETARY,
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL),
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI N. RAVICHANDRAN
TH DIRECTOR (INCHARGE) OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
SESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL),
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... ACCUSED
(BY SRI ARUN K.S., HCGP FOR A-1 AND PROFORMA A-3;
ACCUSED NO.2 - SERVED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT
OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE
PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
INITIATE ACTION UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS DATED 11.03.2020 GIVEN BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.38074/2019 (S-RES) ANNEXURE-A
AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
It is unfortunate case where the learned Single Judge passed the order as long back as on 11.03.2020 directing the Revisional Authority/accused shall take into consideration the ruling noted in the order and disposed of the W.P. No.38074/2019 reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revisional Authority. If any revision is preferred by the petitioners within 30 days from the date of the order, the same shall be disposed of by the Revisional -3- Authority within an outer limit of four months from the date of the presentation of the revision petition. Since the Revisional Authority has not complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 08.12.2021 before this Court to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order dated 11.03.2020.
2. When the matter came up before this Court on 27.10.2022, this Court observed that "though we are in the year 2022 dated 27.10.2022, even after a lapse of two years, the Revisional Authority has not taken care to dispose of the revision petition, which clearly shows that the Revisional Authority is not properly functioning and has not complied with the order for more than two years in spite of directions issued by this Court, which clearly -4- indicates prima-facie that there has been willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge." At that time, the learned HCGP sought for short accommodation. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to next week observing that even if the order is complied, the Revisional Authority has to pay cost for unnecessarily driving the complainant before this Court by engaging the counsel in the present contempt petition, which causes mental stress and also financial loss.
3. When the matter was posted on 03.11.2022, in the pre lunch, the learned HCGP sought for a pass over and when the matter was called out at 4.20 p.m. (i.e., second time), learned HCGP submitted that still the Revisional Authority is in the process of passing the order. This Court in its order has observed that Revisional Authority has no respect for the Court order and the complainant has -5- not only suffered mental stress but also underwent financial loss. Thereby, the Revisional Authority was liable to pay cost for unnecessarily driving the complainant to approach this Court.
4. The order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Revisional Authority to dispose of the review petition within an outer limit of four months from the date of presentation of the revision petition, facts reveal that the revision petition was presented on 08.06.2020 and the Revisional Authority ought to have taken up the matter and dispose of the revision petition within four months i.e., on or before 08.10.2020. Since the Revisional Authority has not disposed of the review petition within the time stipulated by this Court, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 08.12.2021 before this Court.
-6-
5. It is learnt from the learned HCGP that an application for extension of time came to be filed on 03.11.2022 before the learned Single Judge, that too, after the order passed by this Court on 03.11.2022 and today, at last, the Revisional Authority has complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge i.e., after lapse of more than two years and thereby, unnecessarily driven the complainant to file the present contempt petition, which not only caused mental stress, but also financial loss. The Revisional Authority being a responsible Authority held by a responsible officer, requires that orders are complied with within the time stipulated and if for any reason an order could not be complied, ought to have filed the necessary application for an extension of time showing their bonafide to comply with the order well in time.
-7-
6. Very curiously, when this Court passed the order on 03.11.2022, the application is said to have been filed before the learned Single Judge, it is only after thought and now on 08.11.2022, the order came to be passed by the Revisional Authority, which clearly indicates that the Revisional Authority has no respect to the Court order. Thereby the complainant was dragged unnecessarily before this Court in the contempt petition by engaging an advocate by not only incurring financial loss but also mental stress and wasted precious time of the Court without discharging the duty by the Revisional Authority within the time stipulated. Thereby, it is a fit case to impose the cost to the Revisional Authority for delay of two years in passing the orders.
7. We are inclined to impose heavy cost, but on persuasion made by the learned HCGP, we quantify -8- cost at Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the accused- Revisional Authority from her pocket within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order to the complainant for an inordinate delay of more than two years in passing the order and cost should not be paid from the Government.
8. At last, after contempt petition was filed and repeated orders passed by this Court, now, on 08.11.2022 the accused has complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER The Civil Contempt Proceedings are hereby dropped subject to the condition that the Revisional Authority shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of 15 days, -9- failing which, post this matter for taking steps under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBM