Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 528 (KAR)

P. B. Mahishi, I. A. S v. T. V. Mohandda, IFS

2008-09-20

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2008
Judgment P. D. Dinakaran, CJ. The present writ petition is against the orders dated 8.2.2008 and 7.3.2008 of the Central Adminsitrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in Contempt Petition No. 17/2007 which read as hereunder: “08.02.2008: Heard Learned Counsel on both sides, We are not satisfied with the reasons induced by the respondents 1 and 2 and the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondents. We would like to hear from Respondent -1, whether he has any further submissions to make. Accordingly, his personal appearance is orderede in this Court at 10.30AM on 7.3.2008. A Copy of this order may be made available to Shri M Nagarajan, learned Counsel for respondents. 07.03.2008: By our order dated 8.2.2008, we had directed respondent No.1 in the C.P to appear personally in the Court at 10.30 a.m. Even at 11.25 am the said respondent is not present in the Court, Shri M Nagarajan, learned Counsel for the State Government requests that the case may be passed over. When respondent No.1’s presence was ordered in this Court at 10.30 am, there is no question of passing over further after 11.30 a.m. His disobdience to appear before this tribunal is also taken note of and separate proceedings will follow for this Contempt. Registry will now frame charges against respondent No.1 and proceed further. Call on 24.4.2008.” 2. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982, the appearance of the Counsel for the contemner is suffice in the contempt proceedings. Registry will now frame charges against respondent No.1 and proceed further. Call on 24.4.2008.” 2. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982, the appearance of the Counsel for the contemner is suffice in the contempt proceedings. Rule 10 of the said Rules, reads as hereunder: “Rule 10: Appearance of respondents: Unless ordered otherwise by a the Tribunal whenever a notice is issued under this Rule, the respondent shall appear in person in the case of “Criminal Contempt” and in person or through an advocate in the case of “Civil Contempt” at the time and place specified in the notice and continue to attend on subsequent date to which the petition is posted.” (emphasis supplied) The opening words of Rule 10 viz., ‘Unless oredered otherwise by the Tribunal, whenever a notice is issued under this rule’, makes it clear that even though in ordinary course, respondent shall appear in person in criminal contempt and in person or through an Advocate in civil contempt at the time and place specified in the notice, when specific orders are made by the Tribunal for appearance of a person, the person to whom such orders are issued, shall comply with the orders of the Tribunal. 3. In the instant case, we find that the Tribunal has specifically ordered the petitioner to appear in person. In that view of the matter, we donot see any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.