- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13744-DB CCC No. 647 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 647 OF 2023 BETWEEN: AYYAPPA ENCLAVE WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGISTETED NO.71 AND 72 MATHA ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA AYYAPPA ENCLAVE KOGILU VILLAGE EXTENSION, WARD NO.5 AGRAHARA LAYOUT MAIN ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SRI. JAGADEESH S/O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SARAVANA S - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VEENA.R AGED MAJOR CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CUM SECRETARY, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 2. SMT. POORNIMA J.C. COMMISSIONER BWSSB 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. SANJEEV B L - ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13744-DB CCC No. 647 of 2023 THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURTS PROCEEDINGS), ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL DIS-OBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 12.09.2022 MADE IN W.P. NO.18066/2022 (ANNEXURE-B). THIS CCC, 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt petition is initiated by the complainant relating to the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18066/2022 dated 12.09.2022 vide Annexure-B. 2. Learned counsel Sri Saravana S for the complainant and learned counsel Sri Sanjeev B.L. for Accused Nos.1 and 2 are present before the Court physically. 3. Learned counsel Sri Sanjeev B.L. refers to paragraph 3 of the order passed by the learned single - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13744-DB CCC No. 647 of 2023 Judge wherein it is observed that “learned HCGP on request appears for 1st respondent. Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned Panel Counsel on request appears for 2nd respondent. Both they oppose the writ petition contending that unless the right is established, a citizen cannot invoke writ jurisdiction. Having so contended, learned Panel Counsel now aggress to instruct his client to look into grievance of the petitioner as aired in the subject representation, in accordance with law. This is appreciable.” 4. Sri Sanjeev B.L. further submits that there is dispute relating to the title in the area which comes under the purview of the writ petition and also the issues in between the parties. This submission is taken on record. 5. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 whereas in paragraph 52 it is observed as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13744-DB CCC No. 647 of 2023 52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice. 6. Therefore, keeping in view the reliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra and also Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and also the submission made by the counsel for Accused Nos.1 and 5, this contempt petition does not survive for consideration to take action against the respondents/accused. Consequently, the contempt petition is hereby dropped. However, liberty as sought for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13744-DB CCC No. 647 of 2023 by the counsel for the complainant is granted in accordance with law. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB