The Hindu : Karnataka News : Contempt proceedings initiated against district judge

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 02, 2005

Karnataka

Karnataka

Contempt proceedings initiated against district judge

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE, FEB. 1. The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Davangere to be personally present in the court on February 5 in a suo motu contempt case.

A Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Nauvdip Kumar Sodhi, and Justice B. Padmaraj, passed the order after the Registrar-General of the High Court placed before it the response of the District Judge to the show-cause notice issued by the High Court.

On December 14, 2004, the High Court directed the District Judge to dispose of expeditiously a bail petition by a resident of Davangere. The RMC Yard police of Davangere had charged the petitioner under Sections 341, 505, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Prevention of Atrocity Act.

The case was filed in the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge. The judge heard the matter on April 17, 2003 but posted the case to November 30, 2003 for orders. Though the petitioner requested for an early order, his request was denied.

The petitioner moved the High Court, which, in turn, directed the judge to pass orders expeditiously on the bail petition. Despite the directive, the judge chose not to pass the orders.

The matter was placed before the High Court, which directed the Registrar-General to inquire into the incident and place a report.

The Registrar-General submitted the report to the Chief Justice. A show-cause notice was issued to the judge. In his reply, the District Judge assured the court that such delays would not recur.

The High Court then directed the registry to initiate contempt proceedings against the judge.

Taken to task

A Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Nauvdip Kumar Sodhi, and Justice B. Padmaraj, on Monday took the Secretary and Under-Secretary of the Department of Water Resources to task and directed them to appear in person before the court next Monday.

The Bench expressed displeasure over the conduct of the then Under-Secretary, M. Mugar, in "overruling" the court order.

The petitioner had contended that the State Government had committed contempt of court by not acting on the court's directions of July 31, 2003.

The petitioner had moved the court for regularisation of service. The court had allowed the plea and directed the Water Resources Department to consider the petitioner's request. When the petitioner's request was not considered, he filed a contempt case.

Directive

A Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Nauvdip Kumar Sodhi, and Justice B. Padmaraj on Monday directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore North, to be personally present in the court next Monday. The Bench passed the order on two contempt cases.

Manjunatha and Thimmaraya, both of Mattasandra village in Hoskote taluk of Bangalore Rural district, unauthorisedly cultivated Government land. They had applied to the Land Grant Committee for regularisation of their lands. Though the committee decided to regularise the lands, the Tahsildar, who is its member-secretary, refused to ratify the committee decision and sign the Saguvalli chit (regularisation note).

The villagers approached the court which directed the Tahsildar to grant the Saguvalli chit in accordance with the law.

When the matter came up today, the Bench regretted that the Tahsildar had not implemented the court order. It said he had hoodwinked the court to get out of the contempt proceedings.

Summoned

A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Nauvdip Kumar Sodhi, and Justice B. Padmaraj on Monday summoned the Home Secretary, Brahm Dutt, and the Member-Secretary of the Recruitment Committee (DG and IG of Police), M.K. Nagaraj, to be personally present in the court on February 9.

The Bench passed the order on a contempt petition by Chandrashekar and Shigihalli, retired army personnel.

The petitioners had applied for selection to the post of sub-inspector.

They filed a contempt plea after the Home Department did not heed the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) and court orders which had partly upheld their petition and directed the State to consider their representations.

The Bench observed that the respondents had not filed their counter-affidavits despite two adjournments.

Court extends stay

on seizure of `objectionable' material — Page 6

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Karnataka