Karnataka High Court
Gurushanth S/O Kashinath Warad vs Jawaid Akhtar on 20 February, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CCC.NOs.200024-200034/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. Gurushant
S/o Kashinath Warad,
Age: 35 Years,
Occ: Asst. Engineer KPTCL,
R/o Humnabad,
Dist. Bidar
2. Vivekanand
S/o Chandurao Kulkarni,
Age: 29 years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Kodalhangarga,
Tq. Aland,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
3. Anil Kumar Patil
S/o Shivalingappa Patil,
Age: 30 years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Humnabad,
-2-
Dist. Bidar.
4. Md. Abdul Wasim
S/o Abdul Hai,
Age: 31 Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL
R/o Humnabad,
Dist. Bidar
5. Syed Asger Ali
S/o Syed Jeelani Miyan,
Age: 29 Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Basavakalyan,
Dist. Bidar.
6. Hanmanthappa
S/o Devidas
Age: 29 Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Aurad,
Dist. Bidar.
7. Shivaraj S/o Amreppa
Age: 34 Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Bhalki,
Dist. Bidar.
8. Prakash S/o Arjun
Age: 33 Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Sindhbandgi,
Dist. Bidar.
9. Premkumar
S/o Vaijnath
Age: 31 Years,
-3-
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Bidar.
10.Srinivas S/o Bheemayya,
Age: 37 Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Raichur.
11. Ramesh S/o Dharmrayya
Age: Nil Years,
Occ: A.E., KPTCL,
R/o Kalaburagi.
... Complainants
(By Sri. Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Jawaid Akhtar,
The Managing Director,
K.P.T.C.L. Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore-01.
2. Sri. Ramakrishna,
The Director,
( A & HR) KPTCL,
Kaveri Bhavan,
Bangalore-560 009.
...Accused
(By Sri Ravindra Reddy, Advocate)
These CCCs are filed under Sections 11 and 12 of
Contempt of Court Act, praying to initiate contempt of
Court proceedings against the accused for disobedience
and disrespecting the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by
this Hon'ble Court in WP Nos.205255-205265/2015
(S-RES) vide Annexure-A.
-4-
These CCCs coming on for Orders this day,
ARAVIND KUAMR, J., made the following:-
ORDER
Heard Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioners-complainants, Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2.
2. These contempt proceedings are initiated by the writ petitioners alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition Nos.205255- 205265/2015 (S-RES) and are seeking for contempt proceedings being initiated against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of this Court
3. On notice being issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed statement of objections enclosing endorsement dated 2.2.2016 Annexure-R1 and -5- notifications/endorsements, which are at Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R6.
4. Complainants had filed writ petitions Nos.205255- 205265/2016, seeking for various reliefs and had sought for writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider and act on the representation/requisition dated 14.9.2015 Annexure-D and for preparation of list of vacant posts and eligible employees of the Assistant Engineers in the local cadre for promotion under Article 371J of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after having heard the matter has issued the following directions;
"In a matter of the present nature xxxxxx disposing of these petitions. Suffice it to direct the second respondent to take note of the representation dated 14.9.2015 keeping in view the provisions contained in Article 371 (J) of the Constitution of India and take a decision on the representation submitted by -6- the petitioners. The same shall be considered and the action taken in that regard shall be intimated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent. "
5. The statement of objections filed along with the Annexure-R1 to R7 would disclose that pursuant to the same, complainants have been intimated by way of an intimation on 2nd February, 2016 Annexure R-1, the outcome of the consideration of the representation dated 14.9.2015 and the reasons are also assigned thereunder.
6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that direction issued by this Court has been complied and if complainants are aggrieved by the said intimation, they are at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
-7-
7. Hence, these contempt proceedings stand dropped.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL*