Karnataka High Court
Dr N Basavaraj vs Ramesh Desai on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, S G Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
CCC No. 100108/2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
DR. N. BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC.: RETIRED,
DHARWAD-580 001.
- COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMESH DESAI, THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
KRISHI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580 005,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. DR. T.B. ALLOLLI, THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF HOTRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALAKOTE.
- ACCUSED
(BY SHRI. SOURAB SANDUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
This CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIOFN 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYING THE
ORDER DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 62720-62754/2010
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE VIDE ANNEXURE-B & ETC.
2
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard. This contempt petition arises out of the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 62720-62754/2010 whereby certain directions were issued to the respondents in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that the first and second respondents are the Registrars in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and University of Hotricultural Sciences, Navanagar, Bagalkote respectively and as such they are responsible for compliance of the directions issued by the writ Court which they have deliberately and willfully disobeyed and as such have committed contempt. It is contended that in fact it is the second respondent who has willfully and deliberately committed contempt.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, has taken the plea that the University of Horticultural Sciences, Navanagar, Bagalkot, was not a party before the writ 3 Court and as such no direction was issued against the 2nd respondent by the writ court and there is no question of any willful disobedience or non compliance of the writ court order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sita Ram v. Balbir alias Bali (2017 CRI. L.J. 1045) to emphasize that, a third party would also be liable for contempt if he knowingly assists in the breach and if he knowingly assists the person to whom the direction was issued. No difference would be made whether or not the person in joint had notice of the injunction.
5. The submission is that the second respondent being the Registrar of the University of Horticultural Sciences, Navanagar, Bagalkot was responsible for compliance of the writ court order and as such has intentionally committed contempt of the Court by acting contrary to the directions of the writ court. 4
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the first respondent and gone through the records.
7. We are of the considered view that the directions issued by the writ Court related to the working of the petitioner in the University of Agricultural Sciences and it was with respect to the recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner by the first respondent and for which the Court had provided that the petitioner may execute an indemnity bond in favour of the first respondent.
8. The direction issued by the writ Court were not in any manner regarding the functioning of the second respondent who was working as a Registrar of University of Horticultural Sciences and as such in our considered view it cannot be said that the second respondent who was not even a party before the Writ Court had committed any willful disobedience or non compliance of the writ court order.
5
9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention (Sita Ram v. Balbir alias Bali, supra) is in a case where injunction was granted by the competent Court and a third person (third party) had in a certain manner assisted a party which was before the Court concerned to disobey the injunction order. The Court was of the opinion that in such circumstances even an order of injunction was binding on the third party and he can also be held responsible for disobedience of the said order. It is not the position in the present case and as such we are of the considered view that the judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case and therefore of no assistance to him.
10. The third party which was not before the writ court can be held for committing contempt only under the circumstances if the third party was directly involved in the functioning or assisting the party which was before the writ Court. In the present case the University of Agricultural Sciences and University of Horticultural Sciences are altogether two different universities and as such it cannot be said that the Registrar of 6 the University of Horticultural Sciences was in any manner involved in the functioning of the Registrar of the University of Agricultural Sciences or had in any manner assisted the first respondent in disobeying the writ court order.
In this view of the matter we are of the considered view that it cannot be said that the second respondent had deliberately and intentionally committed contempt of the writ court order. The contempt is therefore misconceived and dismissed. Notice is discharged.
SD CHIEF JUSTICE SD JUDGE bvv