Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17331 (KAR)

SRI MAHANTAPPA S TURAKANUR v. SMT.SHALINI RAJNEESH

CCC/191/2025 · 2025-03-05

M I Arun, N V Anjaria Cj

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9375-DB CCC No. 191 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHANTAPPA S. TURAKANUR S/O SIDDAPPA TURAKANUR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SENIOR ASSISTANT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES, VIKASA SOUDHA PRESENTLY WORKING AS A UNDER SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA AGE: 54 YEARS, SECTION OFFICER DPAR (EXECUTIVE) KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 PRESENTLY WORKING AS A UNDER SECRETARY MINES DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9375-DB CCC No. 191 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. SHALINI RAJNEESH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. G. SATHYAVATHI PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPT. OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. ...ACCUSED 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. ... PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST FOR COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF COURT UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THEIR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2023 MADE IN W.P.NO.13868/2020 (S-KSAT) AND ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION TO THE ACCUSED TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND GIVE THE COMPLAINANT ALL THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9375-DB CCC No. 191 of 2025 BENEFITS THAT FLOW FROM SUCH IMPLEMENTATION WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE HE BECAME ELIGIBLE UNDER THE SAID ORDER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Following is the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench which is alleged to have been breached by filing this contempt, "Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for the respondents-State submits that petitioners had given their option for consideration of their category under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India on 21.04.2014 and their candidature will be considered with reference to that date. Her submission is placed on record. 2. Shri Sidharth Baburao, learned advocate for petitioners is satisfied with the said submission. 3. In view of the above, nothing further survives. This petition stands disposed of." 2. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9375-DB CCC No. 191 of 2025 "20. Limitation for actions for contempt.— No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 3. In view of the above provision the cause of action to file the contempt proceedings for the petitioner commenced from the date of the order itself. At the expiry of one year, the contempt was not maintainable. It is therefore not entertained. 4. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to take an appropriate recourse in law. 5. If any remedy is available in law and in accordance with law, the same will be permissible for the petitioner to seek the redressal. However, this court does not express any opinion in the merits in that regard. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7