Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

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

Decided
14 September 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Rejected

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 639 · 1995 INSC 573

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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.

p. 640, margin D

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 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.

p. 640, margin F

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 any right to intervene on his behalf, as he alone is the person aggrieved. Since Vasudevan had filed aforesaid applications and his prayer for remission 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 responsible for the disobedience. 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. Till this is done, officers like Vasudevan shall have to be held responsible for disobedience of courts' order relating to their Department.

pp. 640–641, margin G

The application is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Application dismissed.

p. 641, margin D