In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CCC NO.1128/2017 & CCC NOS.1140-1156/2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1.SRI. GANESH S S/O LATE SHATHYYA C/O SRI. K.K. PRABHAKARA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/A. INDIRANAGARA, NEAR RAJA SEAT, THALATHMANE POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571201. 2.SRI. TIMSON G.G S/O SRI G.S. GANESH AGED 24 YEARS R/A B.BADAGA VILLAGE, CHERAMBANE POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571 201. 3.SRI. DILIP B.L S/O SRI. LAVA B.R 2 AGED 23 YEARS BILIGIRI VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201. 4.SRI. PRAJWAL D.C S/O CHERAMBANE POST AGED 26 YEARS B. BADAGA VILLAGE CHERAMBANE POST MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571201. 5.SRI. PRADEEP S.G S/O SRI GIRISH S.D AGED 20 YEARS HEBBATAGERI VILLAGE, K. NIDUGANE POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571201. 6.SRI. VITTAL S/O LATE ANGARA AGED 39 YEARS R/A MESTHREE, MEKHRI VILLAGE, KAGGODU POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571201. 7.SRI. BOPANNA M D S/O DEVAIAYA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A BEGURU VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571216. 3 8.SRI. YADU KUMAR. U.R S/O RAMESH U.R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A HATHUR VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571218. 9.SRI. RAVI S/O MADAVE NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A HOSARAMANAHALLI, BOLLANALAHALLI PO, BHELEKERE HOBLI, HUNUSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571103. 10.SRI. DURGESH KUMAR.B S/O TAMMAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A BANDERI HOUSE, KYARTHDKA POST, KALANJA VILLAGE, BELTANGADI TALUK, D.K DISTRICT 574212. 11.SRI. SRIROOPA S/O SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A SRI MUTTAPPA TEMPLE PONNAMPET, HALLIGATTU ROAD, PONNAMPET-571216. 12.SRI. ABISHEK S/O NAGARAJ NAYAK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A KALKERE VILLAGE, DODDABELLALU POST 4 RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571108. 13.SRI. PARAMESH S/O KAMALANMMA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, #68, G BASAVANAHALLI, PERIYAPATANA TQ MYSORE DISTRICT 571108. 14.SRI. KANTHARAJU H.L S/O LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO.14, KE HARALAHALLI, NERALAKUPPE, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE DISTRICT-571108. 15.SRI. MADAN S/O NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/A. NO.0, G.BASAVANAHALLI, PERIYAPATNA MYSORE 571107 16.SRI. NATARAJA S/O SHIVANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.22, KE HARALAHALLI, NERALAKUPPE, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE DISTRICT-571108. 17.SRI. SATISH .C S/O CHIKKAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A NO.02, KOKKARAHOSAHALLI, 5 NERALAKUPPE, PERIYAPATNA MYSORE DISTRICT-571105. 18.SRI. YOGESH P C S/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.100 PANCHAVALLI, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105. ...COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI T.S.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH T.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1.SRI. JAVED AKTAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT: CAUVERY BHAWAN K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560009. 2.SRI. D. KIRAN. IRS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHAMEUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., (CESC) HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT: NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE HINKAL, MYSORE-570017. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV. FOR A1 & A2) 6 THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,1971,R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANTS, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 2 FOR CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2016 IN W.P.NOS.56214-231/2016 (ANNEXURE-A) THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J ., PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act , is the alleged breach and non- compliance to the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by this Court, whereby there was a direction of the Court to the accused not to terminate the services of the petitioners during the pendency of the petitions. 2. We have heard Mr.T.S.Ravikumar, learned Counsel for Mr.Venkatesh T.S., appearing for the complainants and Mr.Harikrishna S.Holla, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2. 7 3. After the process has been issued by this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides state that the complainants are taken back to service and resultantly, the status in service of the complainants is restored. 4. In view of the above, as such, the grievance of the complainants to that extent can be said as satisfied. 5. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainants voiced the grievance that inspite of the order passed by this Court dated 11.11.2016 wherein there was further direction of this Court not to terminate the services, the complainants were not permitted to join the duty and it is only after the action taken in the present proceedings, the complainants are taken back in service and therefore, the accused would be required to pay salary for the period during which the aforesaid break-in-service was given. 8 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused states that treating the complainants as if continued in service, the salary for the period during which break remained shall also be paid within a period of three weeks from today. 7. He submitted that the accused have moved the application for vacating of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge but he fairly conceded that uptil now the interim order has not been vacated or modified by this Court. 8. In view of the above, we direct the accused to abide by the declaration to continue the complainants in service and also to pay the salary for the interregnum period during which the break-in-service was given on account of the fact that the complainants were not permitted to join the duty or otherwise and the 9 declaration made before this Court to pay the salary for the aforesaid interregnum period shall also be complied with by the accused. 9. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides in the main writ petitions and the direction shall continue unless any order is passed for modification or vacation of the interim order in the main writ petitions and thereafter the rights of the parties shall stand governed accordingly as per the order which may be passed in the main writ petitions. 10. In view of the above, the present proceedings are not required to be continued further. Disposed of accordingly. 10 11. Liberty to the complainants to revive the present proceedings in the event any of the direction given in this order has not been complied with. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JT/- .