Teshee Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

B M Shyam Prasad, J

The petitioner, a member of the fourth respondent [the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce], is aggrieved by the decision to suspend his membership pending an inquiry, and he has filed his representation against such decision as per Annexure - J. The petitioner has made an elaborate reference to the scheduled elections to the fourth respondent's Governing Council, but the primary question for consideration for this Court in the present petition is: whether this Court must issue directions as is now sought or relegate the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

This Court, on the previous occasion [on 19.01.2026], has heard Mr. Vivek Subba Reddy, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner with he stating that the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry is because of certain complaints lodged by the petitioner alleging financial irregularities and that he was very loud in one of the meetings conducted on-line, and that the petitioner is willing, as stated in Annexure - J, to submit an unconditional apology and also withdraw all allegations.

In the light of this submission, Mr. Tejesh, a learned counsel, who appeared for the fourth respondent was called upon to secure instructions on whether the fourth respondent would consider accepting the petitioner's apology because the petitioner is categorical that he does not wish to precipitate the complaint and he regrets the turn of events based on his complaint.

Ms. Shwetha Shanmukhappa, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, places on record certain documents, and when queried specifically, he submits that the fourth respondent will be constrained in accepting any apology because a Returning Officer is appointed and the decision to accept the apology can only be taken by the Governing Council constituted after the elections. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is uncharitable in making certain allegations of financial misappropriation asserting that he has voice clips to establish the same, but he has not produced those voice clips despite multiple opportunities and that the petitioner, after the previous hearing has circulated messages predicting orders of this Court in these proceedings.

The petitioner's grievance with the decision to keep him under suspension will have to be adjudicated if not in the present proceedings definitely in the alternative proceedings that he would be entitled in law to initiate. Further, the petitioner is specific in his stand that he regrets the complaints made, that he is willing to tender an unconditional apology to all the concerned in the present proceedings and that there would be no occasion for repeated allegations of the kind now stated. This stand does not justify continuation of the precipitation

This Court is of the view that the discretion must be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene quashing the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension but holding the petitioner to the undertaking that he will not repeat making unsubstantiated allegations against any and observing that if there is any reason, the concerned shall act strictly in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.