Karnataka High Court
T S Nagendra vs Shambu Dayal Meena on 17 June, 2013
Author: N Kumar
Bench: N Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
C.C.C. No. 1564/2012 (Civil)
BETWEEN:
T.S. Nagendra
S/o Thippaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Material Supplier,
C/o The Secretary,
Employees Association (Regd.),
Valmiki Nagara, Challakere Town,
Chitradurga District. ....Complainant
(By Sri. Kiran Kumar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Shambu Dayal Meena,
The Secretary to the Government,
Department of Social Welfare,
M.S. Building,
Now Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2
2. Naveen Raj Singh,
The Commissioner,
Department of Social Welfare,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore - 560 011.
3. B.Anand,
District Social Welfare Officer
(Scheduled Tribe),
Chitradurga District,
Chitradurga. ...Accused
(By Sri V.S.Hegde, AGA for R-1 to R-3)
This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 11 and
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, prays that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue summons to the 1st
and 3rd Accused for disobeying the order dated
30.09.2011 passed in W.P.No.19292/2007 and
01.02.2012 in W.P.No.15518/2011.
This Contempt Case coming on for Orders this
day, N KUMAR J., made the following:
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed complaining of disobedience of the order dated 30th September 2011 in W.P. No.1283/2008 and other connected 3 matters, where the writ petition came to be allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 12395/2006 decided on 15.09.2011. In the said writ petition No. 12395/2006 a direction was to consider the case of the petitioners if they are so eligible, and to extend the same benefit which has been extended to similarly placed persons.
2. The respondents after appearance have filed a counter Affidavit along with Annexure 'R1' dated 06.06.2013 where they have referred to all the High Court orders, the direction issued therein and they have set out the facts of the case and have pointed out how these complainants are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the representation is rejected.
3. In the light of what is stated above, the direction issued by this Court has been complied with. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement issued, they are at liberty to agitate 4 their rights in appropriate forum by challenging the same.
This contempt proceedings are dropped.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Rbv/-