Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGHCHIEF SECRETARY TO GOV
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI T.R. DHANANJAYA & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/09/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 254 JT 1995 (9) 599
1995 SCALE (5)358
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 sentence 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 rejected.
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 aforesaid order 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 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
remit the 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
The application is accordingly dismissed.