PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No. 1025 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. M.R THONTARADHYA, S/O RUDRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. KUMAR MANOJ ARADHAYA M. T., S/O M. R. THONTARADHAYA, AGED 17 YEARS, U/G OF COMPLAINANT No.1. 3. KUMAR RAHUL ARADHAYA M. T., S/O M. R. THONTARADHAYA, 19 YEARS, COMPLAINANT No.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT VADDARAHALLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU-572101.
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI SHANMUKHASWAMY, S/O SIDDARAMAIAH S. G., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 5. SMT. SHOBA S., W/O SHANMUKHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6. SRI NUTHAN S., S/O SHANMUKHASWAMY, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 7. KUMARI SHILPA S., D/O SHANMUKHASWAMY, MINOR, AGED 12 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY U/G COMPLAINANT No.4 COMPLAINANTS No.4 TO 7 ARE R/AT 8TH MAIN ROAD, S. S. PURAM, TUMAKURU-572102. 8. SRI SARPABHUSAN G. S., S/O SIDDALINGAIAH G., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 9. SMT. HEMALATHA, W/O. SARPABHUSAN. G. S., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 10. SRI. KARTHIK. G. S., S/O. SARPABHUSAN. G.S ., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, COMPLAINANTS 8 TO 10 ARE R/AT NAGANNAPALYA, SIRA GATE - 572103, TUMAKURU. 11. SRI. M. S. SACHIDANANDAMURTHY, S/O.M . S. SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT VIJAYANAGAR, TUMKURU-572 103. 12. SRI. YOGESH S/O. CHANNABASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 6TH CROSS, BANDAEPALYA, TUMAKURU-572129. 13. SRI. SHAMBULINGASWAMY. B. N., S/O. NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 R/AT BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572107. 14. SRI. SIDDALINGASWAMY. B .N., S/O. NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572107. 15. SRI. NATARAJU S/O. GURUPADASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572107. 16. SMT. PALLAVI. M. S., W/O. SHAMBULINGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT BHEEMASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572107. 17. SRI. RAVISHANKAR S/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT SHANTINAGARA, TUMAKURU-560027. 18. SRI. G. S. SHASHIDHARA, S/O. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572106. 19. KUMARI. G. S. RANJITHA, D/O. G. S. SHASHIDHARA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572106. 20. KUMARI. G. S. MEGHA, D/O. G. S. SHASHIDHARA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572106. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 21. SRI. NAGESH N. P., S/O. PUTTARADHAYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT K. R. EXTENSION, M.G. ROAD, TUMAKURU-572101. (BY SRI R. G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. GOURAV KUMAR, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB DIVISON, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMAKURU. 2. SMT. KAMALAMMA M. A., THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GRADE II, TALUK OFFICE TUMAKURU 572101. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. …COMPLAINANTS …ACCUSED ...PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANTS, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE OF WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.26658/2023 DATED 29.02.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. R.G. Hegde for the petitioners- complainants and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for the respondent - State and its authorities. 2. It is the following directions contained in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2024 by allowing the writ petition, which are made subject matter of non-compliance and in turn brought under the jurisdiction of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 whereby, learned Single Judge directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 to upload the caste certificates on the web portal and make the caste certificates accessible to the petitioners, forthwith. 3. While orders were passed in the proceedings from time-to- time, today when the petition came up for consideration, learned Additional Government Advocate invites attention of the Court to memo dated 01.04.2025 filed by him along with order dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 21.03.2025 with its English translation passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner is passed in the proceedings of revision filed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar. 4 By virtue of the provisions of Section 4F of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation and Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, the Deputy Commissioner enjoys the power, either upon application or suo motu, to call for and examine the records relating to any decision made or order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4A or under Section 4B by the Assistant Commissioner for the purposes of satisfying legality of the order. 5. As per order dated 21.03.2025 passed in the revision proceedings, the caste certificates in question have been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the subsequent development, the question of acting upon the directions of learned Single Judge to upload the caste certificates does not arise, inasmuch as, at present there is no caste certificates in existence in fact and in law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15739-DB CCC No. 1025 of 2024 6. Learned advocate for the petitioners tried to submit in vain that the order was passed at subsequent point of time by the Deputy Commissioner and in the meantime, there was duty cast on the respondents to upload the caste certificates. This submission has no legs to stand. When at present, the caste certificates do not exist and stand annulled and cancelled, contempt does not arise in any respect, as the direction to upload them cannot operate or given effect to. 7. In the circumstances, the powers under the Contempt of Courts Act are not required to be exercised. The petition is dismissed as not surviving. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall have the liberty to challenge the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the Revision proceedings in accordance with law, in respect of which, however, this Court does not express any opinion on merits. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45