Karnataka High Court
CCC/565/2026 of DEENADHAMA SHREE KESHAVA VIDYA SAMSTHE (REG.) Vs SMT.RASHMI MAHESH on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010326772026 NC: 2026:KHC:48853-DB CCC No. 565 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 565 OF 2026 BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 565 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
DEENADHAMA SHREE KESHAVA
VIDYA SAMSTHE (REG.)
VAKKODI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 107,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI.VENKATAPPA.
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAV ANAND K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. RASHMI MAHESH
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…ACCUSED
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.2
(BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR PROFORMA R2)
Digitally
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE
COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO INFLICT APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF
COURT IN DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.25612/2024 (EDN-GIA) AS PER ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
The learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to demonstrate as to whether and when the order dated 11.11.2024, contempt of which is alleged was served on respondent No.1. He seeks an adjournment.
2. However, we find from the record of this petition that the petition is delayed by 141 days. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.1/2026, it has only been stated that the deponent who is the Secretary of the complainant's Society was under the bona fide expectation that the accused would consider the representation dated 08.07.2024 within the reasonable time from 11.11.2024, but the representation has
HC-KAR
not been decided to give grant-in-aid facility to the Pre-university Course being run by the Society. It is stated that he frequently visited the office of the accused and requested to consider the representation dated 08.07.2024, but no positive action is forthcoming.
3. In our considered opinion, no satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay. Therefore, I.A. No.1/2026 is rejected. In view of the I.A. being rejected, the contempt case is consigned.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1