A.V. AMARNATHAN Vs. H.D. KUMARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI A.V. Amarnathan is before this Court seeking for a relief of initiation of proceedings against Sri H.D. Kumaraswamy, Hon'ble Chief Minister for committing criminal contempt of this Court on the following facts: Complainant is an Advocate of this Court. Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act') was brought into force on 1 -6 -1999. It had established a Regulatory Commission in terms of the Statutory Provision. Commission has the necessary power, so vested in the Civil Court in terms of Code of Civil Procedure. Electricity Act, 2003 came into force with effect from 10 -6 -2003 under the Central Act. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission is constituted and is functioning as Electricity Court. Electricity Company filed its tariff before the Commission and in the case on hand all electricity companies filed an application seeking for enhancement of tariff for the year 2006. After a public hearing, the Commission passed an order.

(2.) THE Respondent is the Chief Minister of the State. His brother is the Minister for power. The first Respondent made a scathing attack on the Regulatory Commission. He made personal scathing attack on the Regulatory Commission, on the Chairman and the members of the Commission. Complainant has filed Annexures -'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' (paper cuttings). Thereafter, the complainant submitted an application before the Advocate General seeking for a permission to proceed under Section 15 of the Act. The same was rejected. With these facts, the complainant is before us for initiation of criminal proceedings against the Respondent.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel today argues that under Section 95 of the Act, the Commission has the necessary power and jurisdiction as that of a Civil Court and that therefore it is a Court for the purpose of Section 15 of he Contempt of Courts Act. He would also place reliance on 2002 (3) SCC 243 in support of his submissions. In so far as the rejection by the Advocate General of the consent is concerned, he relies on the Rules of this Court and he would say that this Court despite refusal by Advocate General can take suo -moto proceedings against the Respondent. The complainant is only an informer for the purpose of initiation of proceedings. In so far as newspaper reports are concerned, he would say that Court can initiate proceedings and the Respondent after notice can place his objection/views in the matter of objection of the paper reports.