- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30338-DB CCC No. 11 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. DR. SANJAY R P S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS BANGALORE - 02 AND RESIDING NO.110 19TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 10 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. M SHIVALINGAIAH DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF NEPHRO-UROLOGY VICTORIA HOSPITAL CAMPUS BANGALORE - 02 …ACCUSED 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION 6TH FLOOR, M S BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 01 Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30338-DB CCC No. 11 of 2026 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (SRI. RAMESH N.K, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.1 SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR PRO FORMA RESPONDENT) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, WHEREIN IT IS PRAYED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.17578/2025 (S-RES) ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.17578/2025 (S-RES). The operative part of the said order reads as under: "ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30338-DB CCC No. 11 of 2026 ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representations vide Annexures-E, F and F1. iii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within four weeks form the date of the receipt of the copy of this order." 2. As is apparent from the above, the scope of the order was limited to directing the Director of Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital campus to consider the complainant's representations. 3. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 has filed a counter affidavit affirming that the representations submitted by the complainant were regarding his promotion to the post of Professor in Urology Department pursuant to the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] held on 21.05.2025. It is stated that the said recommendation could not be given effect to in view of the Government Order dated 16.05.2025, whereby the retirement age of super speciality doctors was enhanced from 60 to 65 years. Consequently, the post held by Prof. Dr.Keshavamurthy R against whose vacancy the complainant was to be considered for promotion, did not fall vacant, owing to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30338-DB CCC No. 11 of 2026 extension of the retirement age. The accused has further placed on record an endorsement dated 12.01.2026, wherein it is stated that no vacant post of Professor was available in the Department of Urology to accord promotion to the complainant, as per the recommendation made by the earlier DPC. It is affirmed by the accused that the issue is proposed to be placed before the next meeting of the governing council of the institution for appropriate consideration. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the endorsement issued does not address any of the contentious issues – whether the complainant is otherwise eligible for promotion to the post of professor and whether the complainant would be considered for promotion, once the post falls vacant. He submits that if the accused had taken a categorical stand adverse to the complainant, he would have been in a position to initiate proceedings to challenge the same. 5. However, considering that the scope of the present proceedings is limited to examining whether there is any willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, we are not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30338-DB CCC No. 11 of 2026 persuaded to accept that any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are required to be initiated against the accused. 6. The complaint is, accordingly, closed. 7. We, however, clarify that this order will not preclude the complainant from availing substantive remedies in regard to his grievance. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9