- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD 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. 1074 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O PUTTAERPPA AGED 65 YEARS RETIRED PEON BES PU COLLEGE JAYANAGARA, 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560082 R/AT VASUDEVAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD TARALU POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560082. 2. SRI V Y PAPAIAH S/O M YALLAPPA AGED 64 YEARS RETIRED WATCHMEN BES PU COLLEGE JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560082 R/AT VADERAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU – 560097. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. PADMANABHA R - ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023 AND: 1. DR. SHALINI RAJNEESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001. 2. MRS. C. SHIKHA THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560003. 3. SRI R NARESH THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (ENTITLEMENT AND ACCOUNTS) PARK HOUSE BANGALORE - 560001. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G – AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY WILLFULLY AND DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3010/2021(S-RES) AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023 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 against respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3010/2021 (S-RES) dated 12.02.2021 as per Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel Sri Padmanabha R for complainants is present. Learned AGA Smt Namitha Mahesh B.G who is present is directed to accept notice for respondent/accused Nos.1 to 4. 3. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condontion of delay of 610 days in filing the contempt petition. However, this petition is filed after lapse of several months. It is relevant to refer - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023 Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under: 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. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in paragraphs 52 and 53 observed as under: ‘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 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3039-DB CCC No. 1074 of 2023 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.’ 5. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and so also, the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, there is no substance to consider I.A.1/2024 for condonation of delay and the present contempt petition do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. This contempt petition is hereby closed. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RJ