Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arises from a property dispute concerning Sy.No.200/2 at Kudlu Village, Bengaluru. The petitioner, H. Munireddy, alleged that respondents 2 to 4, his relatives, had been abusing the process of court by repeatedly initiating litigation and suppressing earlier judicial decisions that had attained finality, with the aim of dispossessing him. The dispute traced back to a partition in 1972. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.214/1994 for partition and later O.S.No.329/1996 seeking cancellation of wills. Both suits were clubbed and dismissed on 18.04.1996. Appeals RFA No.370/2000 and 408/2000 were dismissed by the High Court on 06.04.2009, confirming the dismissal. Despite this, respondents 3 and 4, along with another party, filed O.S.No.1103/2009 on 19.07.2009 seeking a declaration of ownership based on a subsequent partition deed, concealing the prior proceedings. That suit was decreed on 30.08.2011, and an appeal by respondent No.2 (RFA No.1986/2011) was dismissed on 06.08.2012. The petitioner contended that such conduct constituted criminal contempt of court. He approached the Advocate General under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking consent to initiate contempt proceedings. By order dated 14.12.2012, the Advocate General refused consent. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Contempt Petition No.02/2013 directly before a Division Bench of the High Court; the Division Bench directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side, and on 25.03.2013, the Chief Justice declined to take cognizance. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the Advocate General's order and for a direction to grant consent. At the hearing, the petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a speaking order, lacked reasons, was based on irrelevant grounds, and was passed without application of mind, contrary to the law laid down in Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited v. Muneerappa and R. Sadagoppan v. K. Rajaiah. Respondent No.2 objected that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the Chief Justice's earlier administrative decision. Respondents 3 and 4 did not file any counter. The judgment text is incomplete, and the court's analysis and final decision are not available.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Advocate General rejecting the application under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is arbitrary, non-speaking, and passed without application of mind, warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- consent of Advocate General required for private party to initiate criminal contempt
- order refusing consent must be a speaking order
- filing multiple suits without disclosure of earlier proceedings amounts to abuse of process
- contempt of court includes hampering due course of judicial proceedings or orderly administration of justice
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (09) 7
Writ Petition No.18157/2013 (GM-RES)
C.M. Nagabushana, S. Subramani, Niloufer Akbar, Sanjeevaraddi B.N., Sanket M. Yenagi
1. The Advocate General, State of Karnataka, 2. Sri K.N. Muniyappa Reddy, 3. Sri M. Sreenivasa Reddy, 4. Sri M. Prakash Reddy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order of the Advocate General refusing to grant consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against respondents 2-4.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by respondent No.1 on Application No.36/2012 and to allow the grant to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that respondents 2-4 had committed criminal contempt by abusing the process of court, filing multiple suits and suppressing material facts about previous proceedings that had attained finality, and that the Advocate General refused consent by a non-speaking order without due application of mind.
Previous Decisions
O.S.No.214/1994 and O.S.No.329/1996 were clubbed and dismissed on 18.04.1996; RFA No.370/2000 and RFA No.408/2000 were dismissed on 06.04.2009; O.S.No.1103/2009 was decreed on 30.08.2011; RFA No.1986/2011 was dismissed on 06.08.2012; Criminal Contempt Petition No.02/2013 was filed and on 25.03.2013 the Chief Justice refused to take cognizance.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Advocate General is arbitrary, non-speaking, and without application of mind.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after the Chief Justice's administrative order refusing to take cognizance in the earlier Criminal Contempt Petition No.02/2013.
Whether the respondents committed criminal contempt by filing multiple suits without disclosing earlier proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the order was not a speaking order and lacked reasons, rendering it arbitrary and illegal, and that the respondents had abused the process of court by concealing previous judicial proceedings, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings.
Petitioner relied on Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited v. Muneerappa and R. Sadagoppan v. K. Rajaiah to contend that non-disclosure and multiple filings amount to contempt.
Respondent No.2 objected that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Chief Justice had already refused to take cognizance of the contempt on the administrative side in the earlier Criminal Contempt Petition No.02/2013.
Respondents 3 and 4 did not file any counter.
Judgment Excerpts
respondent No.1 without application of mind proceeded to pass the impugned order refusing to grant consent
respondent No.1 has rejected the application based on the irrelevant grounds
Procedural History
19.07.1972: Partition between K.N.Obala Reddy and K.N.Muniyappa Reddy regarding Sy.No.200/2. 26.06.1994: O.S.No.214/1994 filed by respondent No.2 for partition. O.S.No.329/1996 filed for cancellation of wills. 18.04.1996: Both suits clubbed and dismissed. Appeals RFA No.370/2000 and 408/2000 filed. 04.08.2003: Respondents 2-4 entered into partition dividing properties including Sy.No.200/2. 06.04.2009: High Court dismissed both RFAs, judgment attained finality. 19.07.2009: O.S.No.1103/2009 filed by respondents 3 and 4 and Smt.K.M.Dhanalakshmi seeking declaration of ownership, suppressing previous proceedings. 30.08.2011: O.S.No.1103/2009 decreed. 06.08.2012: RFA No.1986/2011 dismissed. 14.12.2012: Advocate General passed impugned order on Application No.36/2012 refusing consent. Petitioner filed Criminal Contempt Petition No.02/2013 before Division Bench. 12.03.2013: Division Bench directed placing papers before Chief Justice on administrative side. 25.03.2013: Chief Justice refused to take cognizance. Present Writ Petition No.18157/2013 filed and heard on 18.09.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 15(1)(b)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
