STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA versus SHRI T.R. DHANANJAYA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 14-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Rejected
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH CHIEF 
A 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
SHRI T.R. DHANANJAYA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Cowt-Contenmor an officer of a State Govemment-Sen-
tenced to one month imprisonment for wilful disobedience of order of 
Cowt-His applications for remission of sentence rejected-Order imple-
C 
mented-Application of State Govemment for remission of sentence-Held 
not maintainable. 
One of the officers of the appellant-State Government was, on 
8.9.1995, awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment for one month by 
this Court for wilful disobedience of its order. The applications filed by D 
the Officer for remission of the sentence were rejected and the order was 
implemented. The State Government filed the instant application for 
reviewing the order dated 8.9.1995. 
It was contended by the applicant State Government that they were E 
responsible to implement this Court's Order through their Secretaries, but 
since the action was taken at different levels, the officer was not personally 
liable for violation of the order of the Court. The applicant prayed for 
remission of the sentence. 
Rejecting the application, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. An appeal or application like the one at hand can be 
initiated only by the person found guilty. No other person has any right to 
intervene on his behalf, as he alone is the person aggrieved. Since applica-
tion of the contemnor and his prayer for remission were rejected on merits, G 
the application filed by the State seeking review of a review order, is not 
maintainable. [640-H, 641-A] 
2. It would be open to the Government to frame appropriate rules 
fastening the responsibility and accountability for implementation of the 
order of the courts and to inform the courts in that behalf. [641-C] 
H 
639 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 6 OF 1995 
IN 
Contempt Petn. No. 234/94. 
B 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 797 ·of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 16th July, 1991 of the 
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Appln. No. 1443 of 
c 1991. 
D 
E 
F 
B.V. Acharya and K.R. Nagaraj for the Appellant. 
P. Mahale, Rajesh Mahale, Shanta Kr. V. Mahale and M. Veerappa 
for the Respondent. 
· 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This Court by order dated August 25, 1995 found, Mr. J. Vasudevan, 
Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, 
Government of Karnataka guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of this 
Court and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 
Thereon, Vasudevan filed I. As. 4 and 5 of 1995 praying for remission of 
the sentenc~ and explaining the circumstances in which he sought the 
remission. It was also stated that the order in question has since been 
implemented. By our order dated September 8, 1995, the applications were 
rejectoo. 
The State of Karnataka filed this I.A. on September 11, 1995 for 
reviewing the order dated September 8, 1995. It has been stated in the 
application that primarily the State is responsible to implement this Court's 
order through their Secretaries and the State has highest regards for the 
G orders of this Court. After the afoi;esaid ordt?r was passed by this Court 
against Vasudevan, the judgment of this Court has been implemented and 
therefore sentence of imprisonment is requested to be remitted. 
It is now settled law that an appeal or application like the one at 
hand can be initiated only by the person found guilty. No other person has 
H 
any right to intervene on his behalf, as he alone is the person aggrieved. 
.... 
STATE v. T.R.DHANANJAYA 
641. 
Since Vasudevan had filed aforesaid applications and his prayer for remis-
sion was rejected on merits, the application filed by the State seeking 
review of a review order, is not maintainable. It is submitted on behalf of 
the State that in view of the extensive power of this Court under Article 
142 of the Constitution, this Court may consider the matter and remiMhe 
sentence. We do not find any circumstance warranting further review of 
our review order and that too on self-same grounds. The contention of the 
State is that since the action is taken at different levels, the officer is not 
personally liable for the violation of the order of the Court. It is their 
internal management and the Court or any other party would not know as 
to who was actually resp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.