- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2794-DB CCC No. 553 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.553 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C. JAYARAM S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST - 560 034 2. SRI M. LAKSHMAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.133, BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST - 560 034 3. SRI C. LAKSHMANA S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST - 560 034 4. SRI C. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST - 560 034 …COMPLAINANTS (BY MS. SOWMYASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI SRINIVASA REDDY R. V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2794-DB CCC No. 553 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. DR. N. SHIVASHANKAR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EXECUTIVE MEMBER OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, 'EAST WING' KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., A.G.A. FOR A-1; SRI P. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR A-2) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS HEREIN AND TAKE ACTION AGAINST THEM AS PER LAW FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.11615/2020 DATED 25.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2794-DB CCC No. 553 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) Ms. Sowmyashree representing Sri. Srinivasa Reddy.R.V, learned counsel who is on record for the complainant is present before the Court physically. 2. Smt. Namitha Mahesh.B.G, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 are present before the Court physically and submits that this contempt is filed against the disobedience of the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.11615/2020 vide Annexure-J. It is submitted that subsequent to the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, an appeal was preferred in WA.No.381/2022 and the appeal was disposed of on 19.07.2022, modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to that effect learned counsel has produced Annexure-R1. 3. Subsequently, Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/accused submits that subsequent to rendering of the judgment by the Co-ordinate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2794-DB CCC No. 553 of 2022 Bench of this court in the aforesaid writ appeal, the complainant has initiated a review petition in R.P.No.655/2022. 4. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER (1) AND ANOTHER reported in (2024)2 SCC 362 wherein, in Paragraph No.11 of the said judgment, it is observed as under: "In PARSION DEVI Vs. SUMITRI DEVI, this Court made very pivotal observations: (SCC p.719, para9) 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 5. This contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view Section 2(b) and also Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but, this contempt proceeding - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2794-DB CCC No. 553 of 2022 has been initiated for taking action against the respondents/accused. The writ appeal in W.A.No.381/2022 filed by the complainant challenging the order passed in W.P.No.11615/2022, has been disposed of and a modification order dated 19.07.2022, was also passed vide Annexure-R1. However, the proceeding in R.P.No.655/2022 is pending for consideration. Therefore, keeping in view that the review petition is pending and considering the issues in between the parties to this contempt proceedings, it is deemed appropriate that this contempt proceedings do not survive for consideration for the present. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7