Karnataka High Court
Mr Hemanth Kumar Choudhary vs Dr. N. Saravana Kumar on 5 September, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
C.C.C. Nos.1034-1341/2016 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Hemanth Kumar Choudhary
Aged about 60 years
S/o late Sri Gomaram Navalaji
Residing at No.33,
Hospital Road,
Bangalore-560 053.
2. Smt. Ganga Bai
W/o late Sri Gomaram Navalaji
Aged about 88 years
Represented by her Son and GPA Holder
Mr. Hemanth Kumar Choudhary,
Residing at Village Gadana
Tahsil Marwar Junction
District Pali, Rajasthan.
... Complainants
(By Sri Prajwal P., Advocate (Absent))
-2-
AND:
1. Dr. N. Saravana Kumar,
Major, Chief Secretary/Private Secretary.
Union of India
Department of Postal and Telegraph
New Udyog Bhavan
New Delhi.
2. Dinesh Khare
Age: Not known
Superintendent of Post Offices
Bangalore South Division
Bangalore-560 041.
3. K.M. Ramachandra Reddy
Age: Not known
Post Master
Chickpet Post Office
Balaji Complex
Bangalore-560 053. ... Accused
(By Sri Krishna S. Dixit, ASG for Accused Nos.1 to 3)
These CCCs are filed under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, by the complainants, wherein
they prays to initiate contempt proceedings against the
accused in terms of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, for willful and deliberate violation of the
directions of the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court
in Writ Petition No.37221/2013(GM-RES) and deal with
and punish them as provided.
These CCCs coming on for Orders this day, Jayant
Patel, J., passed the following:-
-3-
ORDER
The basis of the present case under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and non-compliance of the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by this Court in the main Writ Petition No.37221/2013, whereby respondents are directed to consider the veracity of the Power of Attorney issued in favour of petitioner No.1 and permit him to transact on behalf of his mother for releasing the amounts due to petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1 with applicable interest as may be payable.
2. The learned counsel for the complainants is not present in the second round. However, Mr.Krishna S.Dixit, learned Assistant Solicitor General states that he wanted to serve the copy of the counter affidavit. But, since the learned counsel for the complainants is not available, he has not been able to serve the copy and he has tendered the memo together with the counter affidavit on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3.
-4-
3. As per the counter affidavit it is the case of the accused that out of the total amount in one account, an amount of Rs.6,91,621/- comprising of two cheques one for Rs.3,45,810/- and another for Rs.3,45,311/- has already been paid. But it appears that, the grievance on the part of the complainants is that, the balance amount of Rs.60,863/- which was shown as interest has not been paid. Further, the grievance on the part of the complainants is that, another account in the name of Gomaji Navalaji & Sons (HUF) bearing different PAN number, the balance shown was Rs.6,10,777/-, but the same has not been paid.
4. In response to the aforesaid grievance on the part of the complainants on behalf of the accused it has been submitted that as per the first PPF, account of Gomaji (HUF) was required to be closed and the interest of Rs.60,863/- pertains to the period thereafter. It has also been submitted that so far as another account of Gomaji -5- Navalaji and Sons (HUF) is concerned, the same could not be opened because as per the accused, second account in the same name of PPF was not permissible. Hence, the payment has not been released so far as those parts are concerned.
5. As such, the subject matter of the main writ petition before the learned Single Judge was pertaining to the representation through Power of Attorney and the disbursement of the amount to the Power of Attorney. This Court did not examine the question as to whether the interest was payable if the money was retained by the Department in the PPF account even if the outer limit for continuation of the PPF account was over. Further, this Court did not examine the aspects as to whether first account of Gomaji (HUF) and Gomaji Navalaji & Sons (HUF) are the same of one HUF or not. If the liability to pay interest arises in the first account on account of retention of money or if the liability to disburse the amount arises in the another account of HUF namely Gomaji Navalaji & -6- Sons (HUF), on account of the fact that it is a different HUF having different PAN number, it would be for the complainants to resort to the appropriate substantive proceedings seeking appropriate writ against the department and at that stage rights and contentions of both the sides may be examined in accordance with law. In any case such aspect has not been examined in the main writ petition.
6. Therefore, leaving the complainants-original petitioners to file appropriate proceedings, we do not find that such grievance can be entertained in the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, since such was not the subject matter of the main petition, wherein the order has been passed.
7. Hence, subject to the aforesaid observation, the present proceedings are not required to be continued further. Hence disposed of accordingly. -7-
8. However, it is observed that, if any proceedings are resorted to, the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open to consider in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *ap/-