1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

CCC.No.419 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

AMRUTHESH N.P

S/O.LATE PUTTASWAMY N.C

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

PROFESSION-ADVOCATE

NO.1/15, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS

SAMPIGE ROAD – MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU – 560 003

... COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI AMRUTHESH N.P., PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

1.

SRI T.M.VIJAYA BHASKAR

CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU – 560 001

2.

DR.RAJKUMAR KHATRI

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

M.S.BUILDING

DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001

2

3.

SRI K.G.JAGADISH

THE COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE

COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

SESHADRI ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001

4.

SMT.M.KANAGAVALLI

THE DIRECTOR

PRE-UNIVERSITY

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

M.S.BUILDING

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU – 560 001

ALSO AT

18^TH CROSS

MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU – 560 003

…. ACCUSED

(BY SRI G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, AGA)

*****

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE

NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 FOR

COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE

COURT PASSED IN W.P.NO.21571/2019 DATED 03.01.2020

(ANNEXURE-A) AND TO PUNISH ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE

WITH LAW AND ETC.,

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3

O R D E R

We have heard Sri Amruthesh N.P., party appearing

in person and Sri G.V.Shashidhar, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for State.

2. This contempt proceedings have been initiated

alleging

that

order

dated

03.01.2020

passed

in

WP.No.21571/2019

has

been

willfully

disobeyed

by

respondents.

3. For the purpose of convenience, we extract

hereinbelow the order passed on 03.01.2020 which is

alleged to have been violated. It reads:

“4.xxxxxx

(1) We direct the State Government to treat

this petition as a representation of the

petitioner and to take an appropriate

decision as regards prayers (ii) and (iii)

in accordance with law within a period of

four months from today after giving an

opportunity of being heard either to the

Association of Private Management PU

4

Colleges

in

the

State

or

their

representatives.”

4. A plain reading of above order would indicate that

writ petition was directed to be treated as a representation

of petitioner by State Government and to take appropriate

decision as regards prayers (ii) and (iii) made therein.

5. Learned Government Advocate who has filed a

memo today has enclosed the copy of order dated

10.03.2021 passed by respondents which would disclose

that pursuant to direction issued, meeting of all the

stakeholders was convened on 22.02.2021 and it is stated

therein that petitioner did not participate in the said

meeting and in other words, petitioner was absent. After

considering

the

views

of

the

members

present,

representation of petitioner has been rejected. Thus,

direction issued to State Government to consider the

representation of petitioner stands complied. However, if

petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2021, he

5

would be at liberty to challenge the same in the manner

known to law.

With aforesaid observation, we drop the contempt

proceedings.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

LB