Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR C.C.C. NO.580/2021 BETWEEN: SHANKAR S/O SHRI SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.12/1/L-7 SIVAYOGI SCHOOL GROUND MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570007. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA, ADV.,) AND: 1. T.V. SOMANATHAN
FINANCE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001. 2. D.D. PATWARI
PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. AJITH KUMAR VERMA
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
RESIDENCY ROAD
MYSORE-570010. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSAN, ASG FOR A1 A2 SERVED) - - - THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNSHED FOR WILFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS DATED 02.03.2021 IN W.P.No.3635/2021, ANNEXURE-A OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Mr.Tarsem Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant. Mr.H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Assistant Solicitor General for accused No.1. This petition has been filed for non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3635/2021. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: "3. The prayer sought by the petitioner was not considered by the Tribunal on account of the disablement sustained by the petitioner during
3 the pendency of his application before the Tribunal. Be that as it may. De hors the order of the Tribunal, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned respondents for permitting him to serve in the respondent/department as a casual labour. It is needless to observe that if such a representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and particularly with reference to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs." 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the accused No.1 submitted that in compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 02.03.2021, by an endorsement dated 17.09.2021, the representation of the complainant has been decided. He has produced a copy of the endorsement which is taken on record. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, we are not inclined to proceed further with the contempt proceeding.
4 Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to assail the aforesaid endorsement in case the grievance of the complainant survives. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV