- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 555 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI B C SHANTHARAJU S/O B S CHIKKANNA AGED 63 YEARS RETIRED AS SANSKRIT LECTURER KONGADIAPPA PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT R/AT: NO.83, 5TH A CROSS A SECTOR, AMRUTHANAGAR SAHAKARNAGAR POST LANDMARK “SHARADA SCHOOL” BENGALURU - 560 092. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMACHANDRA R, IAS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM SAMPIGE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 012. 2. SMT. SUREKHA KATTI (IN-CHARGE) DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 ZILLA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BEERASANDRA POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT EARLIER HAVING THE ADDRESS AT: WADIYAR ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G - AGA FOR ACCUSED NO.3; ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDERS OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.4960/2020 (S-RES) DATED 9.3.2020 UNDER ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THEM. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt petition is filed by the complainant against the respondent / authority in view of non-compliance of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4960/2020 dated 09.03.2020 vide Annexure-“B”. 2. By the said order, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the retrial benefits to the petitioner / complainant herein, in accordance with the undertaking made before and recorded by the Division Bench on 27.11.2015. 3. An application I.A.No.1/2022 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 107 days in filing this contempt petition. 4. Learned AGA has filed a compliance affidavit dated 19.09.2022 stating that in terms of the interim order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 dated 27.11.2015 passed by this Court in W.A.No.2476/2015 and other connected matters, the complainant has agreed to receive pension as was being paid to him on 09.03.2020. It is further submitted that till date, the complainant continues to receive the same pension as was being paid to him on 09.03.2020 and hence, there is no disobedience of the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4960/2020. More so, it is submitted that the retirement benefits have been paid to the complainant who has initiated the present contempt proceedings against the accused. 5. However, learned counsel for the complainant, points out to a document namely Annexure-“A” issued by the Office of the Principal Accountant General dated 07.01.2021. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that part of the amount indicated therein has been settled by the competent authority and thereafter they have issued a notice against the respondents / accused to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 settle the balance amount. This submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record. 6. The present contempt petition having been filed after a delay of 107 days, it is deemed appropriate to refer to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads thus: “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.” 7. It is also relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO vs. M. LINGAMAIAH AND ORS (2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1764), wherein it has been held thus: “52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice. 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.” 8. Therefore, keeping in view Paragraphs 52 and 53 of the said judgment inclusive of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, this contempt petition does not survive for consideration. However, the order of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1325-DB CCC No. 555 of 2022 learned Single Judge has been complied with and in this regard the learned AGA has also filed the compliance affidavit dated 19.09.2022, which is taken on record. In view of the same, the contempt petition is hereby dropped. I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed of as a consequence. However, the complainant is reserved liberty to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KS