- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9-DB CCC No. 324 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI M RUDRAPPA SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI H S RAJAPPA SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NUGGEHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577131. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI T K ANIL KUMAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. DR SELVAKUMAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9-DB CCC No. 324 of 2023 3. SRI MAHANTESH BILAGI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577002. 4. SMT MAMATHA HOSAGOWDA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577002. 5. SRI PUTTARAJU GOWDA TAHSILDAR CHANNAGIRI TLAUK, CHANNAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577213. 6. DR AJAY MEDICAL OFFICER NITIGERE AND NUGGEHALLI GOVERNMENT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE NUGGEHALLI, SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577131. 7. SMT SUMA HEAD MISTRESS GOVERNMENT LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NITIGERE AND NUGGEHALLI SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DITRICT - 577131. 8. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G–AGA FOR ACCUSED NO.8) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9-DB CCC No. 324 of 2023 THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 and 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE PERSONS OF THE ACCUSED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT FOR HIS WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 09.07.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.12306/2021 (LA-RES) AND THEREBY PUNISH HIM FOR A CIVIL IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 6 MONTHS AND TO IMPOSE FINE FOR A SUM OF RS.2,000/-. 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 complainants against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.12306/2021 (LA–RES) vide Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel Sri Siddamallappa P.M for complainants is present. Learned AGA Smt Namitha Mahesh B.G for Respondent No.8 is also present. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9-DB CCC No. 324 of 2023 3. Learned AGA submits that compliance affidavit dated 02.07.2024 has been filed by the competent authority relating to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.12306/2021(LA-RES). 4. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. However, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as 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. 5. Further, It is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Tirupathi Rao Vs. M.Lingamaiah and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1764 wherein Para No.53 reads as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9-DB CCC No. 324 of 2023 ‘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 provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated supra, this contempt proceeding do not have any substance to persuade the issues emerged between the complainant and respondents. Consequently, this contempt proceedings stands disposed of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9-DB CCC No. 324 of 2023 In view of disposal of this matter, interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RJ