Contempt Petition No. 636 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12533-DB CCC No. 636 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.636 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MRS. NIKHAT KAUSAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS D/O. MUSHTAQ AHMED RESIDING AT NO.21, 2ND CROSS, CV ROAD BANNIMANTAP, A-LAYOUT MYSURU - 570 015.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. JYOTHI G.B. KANGOKAR, ADVOCATE) …COMPLAINANT Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. SMT. V. SUMANGALA THE DIRECTOR D.S.E.R.T DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING #4, 100 FEET RING ROAD BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. MR. TAJ MOHAMMED KHAN THE SECRETARY RIFA-HUL-MUSLIMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST FAROOQIA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX FARROQIA ROAD, EIDGAH MYSURU - 570 021. 3. SMT. UMME RESHMA THE PRINCIPAL FAROOQIA TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, UDAYAGIRI MYSURU - 570 019. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12533-DB CCC No. 636 of 2023 4. PROF. YOGESH SINGH MEMBER SECRETARY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION HANS BHAVAN, WING II NO.1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG (NEAR ITO) NEW DELHI - 110 002. 5. DR. K. G. CHANDRASHEKHARA THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TANTRIK SHIKSHAN BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. SRI RITESH KUMAR SINGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., A.G.A., FOR A-1 AND A-6, SRI L. M. AMITH, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI L. M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE, FOR A-2 AND A-3, & A-4 AND A-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …ACCUSED * * * THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14155 OF 2011 AND JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2019 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3396 OF 2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AT ANNEXURES-A AND B. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS 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:12533-DB CCC No. 636 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt petition has been initiated against accused No.1 for willful disobedience of the order dated 25-5-2012 in Writ Petition No.14155 of 2011 and judgment dated 15-10-2019 in Writ Appeal No.3396 of 2012 passed by this Court. 2. Smt. Jyothi G.B. Kangokar, learned counsel for the complainant, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional Government Advocate for accused Nos.1 and 6, and Sri L.M. Amith, learned counsel representing Sri L.M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3, are physically present. 3. Smt. Jyothi G.B. Kangokar, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that I.A. No.1 of 2024 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 491 days in filing the contempt petition. 4. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional Government Advocate for accused Nos.1 and 6, submits that in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12533-DB CCC No. 636 of 2023 present contempt proceedings is not maintainable as there is delay of 491 days in initiation of the contempt proceedings. 5. Keeping in view the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'Act'), 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." 6. In the meantime of recording the status, the learned counsel for the complainant refers to Section 22 of the Act, which says the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law relating to the contempt of Courts. 7. Section 22 of the Act clarifies that the provisions of this Act are supplementary to, and do not diminish, any other laws relating to contempt of Courts. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12533-DB CCC No. 636 of 2023 8. Further, keeping in view the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO v. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein at paragraph No.53, it has observed as under: "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." 9. Learned counsel for the complainant also refers to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. 10. The "law declared" in Article 141 of the Constitution of India refers to the legal principles and reasoning upon which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12533-DB CCC No. 636 of 2023 a Supreme Court judgment is based, not just the specific facts of the case. 11. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Act and so also, the reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, there is no substance to consider I.A. No.1 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 491 days in filing the contempt petition. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. 12. Even on merits, there is no substance to consider this contempt petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this contempt petition is hereby dismissed. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the complainant seeks liberty. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted in accordance with law. In view of the dismissal of the contempt petition, pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17