- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14319-DB CCC No. 348 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENKATESH T S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR BES EVENING COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK BANGALORE-11. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.68 BGS LAYOUT, 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS J S DINNE, J P NAGARA 8TH PHASE BENGALURU-76. 2. SMT JAYASHREE C L W/O C.S.LAKSHMAN RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RETIRED PEON BES EVENING COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-11. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.302 NAGARAJ APARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN 6TH CROSS GAYAHTRINAGARA BENGALURU-21. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. KUSHAL – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. THYAGARAJA S - ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14319-DB CCC No. 348 of 2022 1. SRI G SRIDHAR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRI G KUMAR NAIK THE PRINCIPALSECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. 3. SRI PRADEEP P THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 4. DR APPAJI GOWDA THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION BANGALORE-560009. 5. DR. T VENKATESHMURTHY THE PRINCIPAL B E S EVENING COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560011. 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. HARISHA A S – AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 & 6) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14319-DB CCC No. 348 of 2022 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: i) TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.4326- 4356/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2015 TAKE COGNIZANCE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED; ii) DIRECT THE ACCUSED FIX AND SETTLE THE PENSIONARY BENEFIT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE AND GRANT ALL BENEFITS FLOWING THEREOF PAYABLE TO COMPLAINANT FORTHWITH IN TERM OF THE DIRECTION OF THIS HON BLE COURT. THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceeding is initiated by the complainants for disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4326-4356/2015 dated 27.07.2015 vide Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel Sri Kushal for the complainants is present before the Court physically and represents Sri Thyagaraja S who is on record. 3. Learned AGA for Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 is present before the Court physically. He submits that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14319-DB CCC No. 348 of 2022 against the order passed by the learned single Judge an appeal has been preferred in W.A.No.2476/2015 and the same is pending consideration. 4. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act which indicates 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. However, it is relevant to note that this contempt petition has been filed with a delay of 332 days and the same is indicating in the material available on record. 5. Keeping in view the said status and so also, the grounds urged in this contempt petition, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14319-DB CCC No. 348 of 2022 OnLine SC 1764 wherein at paragraph 53 it is observed as under: 53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision and that the writ appeal in respect of the issues involved in between the parties is pending consideration and so also, the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra, this contempt petition does not arise for consideration. Consequently, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB