B Krishna Bhat vs Sri. Jayaram Murthy and Sri H V Vadiraj

DV Shylendra Kumar, J.—This contempt petition is by the third respondent in WP Nos. 16108-16112/2010 albeit in his capacity as the then President of the third respondent - Society and nevertheless has sought, to prosecute this contempt petition by filing application seeking for permission on the premise that the complainant had ceased to hold the post of ''President'' by the time these batch of writ petitions were presented though did figure as respondent even by name as ''President'' of the very society in the writ petitions that had been filed prior to 17.8.2009 on which date it appears the complainant claims to have resigned from the post etc., and has sought to prosecute the contempt petition on the premise that certain directions that had been issued by this court in common order passed by this court not only in WP Nos. 16108-16112 of 2010 but also in the earlier writ petitions, the successor President and Secretary were required to comply by furnishing the list of order of seniority of the members of the society and also to rebuild certain records etc.

Submission of Sri. Puttige R Ramesh, learned counsel for the complainant is that it is because the complainant did not figure either as petitioner or respondent in the writ, petitions, an application is filed seeking to prosecute the contempt petition in his capacity as a Member.

With the very complainant figuring as accused person in the contempt petition initiated by persons who were themselves petitioners before this court and with the petitions resulting in the common order dated 16.11.2010 and in the instant writ petitions even without dispute being not a party on the either side, we do not find it is proper to permit the complainant to prosecute the contempt petition of this nature.

Therefore, application for permission to prosecute the contempt petition is declined and the contempt petition itself is dismissed.