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.