Contempt Petition No. 340 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH 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. 340 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M. N. VENKATESH S/O. NAGENDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DAILY WAGE TYPIST, TALUK PANCHAYAT, THIRTHAHALLI-577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: …COMPLAINANT Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI. N.D. PRAKASH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …ACCUSED
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in relation to the initiation of the writ petition is fully complied with. 7. However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant and so also keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent / accused in respect of the affidavit in detail has been filed. But it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 India in a judgment of one S.Tirupathi Rao vs M Lingamaiah And Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1764, wherein at para-52 an observation is made that, 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice. 8. However, keeping in view the provisions Section -2(b) of the Contempt Of Courts Act and it is relating to the definition of the ingredients to constitute the offences for framing of a charge-against the respondent / accused and equally keeping in view the provision of Section - 11 and 12 of Contempt Of Courts Act 1971 and even keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of law and so also keeping in view the detailed affidavit as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent / accused and more so, it is relevant to record no ability to comply a person is genuineness unable to comply with the court orders and therefore if the contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration, even in pursuance of the reliance as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 Consequently, this contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:SNN
Arguments
(BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,1971 AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT ON 22.6.2022 IN WP NO.51010/2012 (S-REG). THIS PETITION, 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 has been initiated by the complainant in respect of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge on the writ side in writ petition No.51010/2012 (S-REG), dated 22.06.2022, vide Annexure-D. But in para-11 of the orders rendered by the Learned Single Judge on the writ side, it indicates that the circular dated 13.11.2006, does not come to the aid of the respondents. Even otherwise, the observations made in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 the order passed in the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP makes it clear that the case of individual workman will have to be considered. In the light of such observation, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the daily wage workers who have worked under the protection of the interim orders passed in some other matters as regards class of daily wage workers are disentitled to claim the relief of regularization. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed. The endorsements at Annexure- J and and also the endorsement at Annexure-P is liable to be set- aside. 2. Wherein the learned counsel for the complainant in this matter submits that the endorsement at Annexures-J and P issued by the authorities is liable to be set-aside and therefore its requirement for implementation of the orders passed by Learned Single Judge on the writ side. 3. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent / accused namely, Sri.B.G.Somayaji who is present before - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 the Court physically and submitting forcefully to consider the affidavit of Sri.N.D. Prakash S/o. of Dasappa as working as Director (Development), Office of the Karnataka Pnachayat Raj Commissionerate and he worked as a Chief Executive Officer at the time at Zilla Panchayat Shivamogga from 12.08.2022 till 30.03.2023 and the same has been indicated in para no.1 of the affidavit. 4. This affidavits are consisting of para-1 to para - 10 whereas in para-5 of this Affidavit indicates that - also referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Uma Devi's case reported in (2006 AIR SCW 1991) held that, unless the appointment is in terms of relevant rules, and after proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any rights on the appointee and such appointment is illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that illegal appointment / employment cannot be legalized or regularized and also held that the Executive has no power to regularize the illegal appointment, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 of India in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph no.44 of that judgment has made an observation that and also stated that irregular appointments (not illegal appointment) can be regularized if the conditions stated therein are satisfied. Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2346 (State of Karnataka vs. G.V. Chandrashekar) setting aside the judgments of the High Courts since the initial recruitment being only illegal and contrary to the constitutional scheme of this Country. 5. Whereas in para no.7 of this affidavit it reveals as since the Executive has no power to legalise or regularize illegal appointment / employment, Karnataka Legislature enacted the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to protect their interest. Complainant's name is included in the Government Order dated 08.05.2014, at Sl.No.2418. 6. In para-9 of this Affidavit an observation is made that the complainant is not appointed under any Recruitment Rules and he is not appointed after calling for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4009-DB CCC No. 340 of 2023 application and his employment is illegal. Executive has no power to regularize his services. The Government after being satisfied that his service cannot be regularized, included his name at Sl.No.2418 in Government Order dated 08.05.2014 and gave him protection under the Karnataka Daily Wage Welfare Employees Act, 2012. The same has been in detail stated in para no.9 and also produced at Annexure-E for the purpose of perusal and thereafter it also indicates as endorsement is in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e., Umadevi's case and submitting that the order