- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2204-DB CCC No. 100023 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100023 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DR. KIRAN R. NAIK S/O RUDRA NAIK, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O. NO.54, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, WEST SIDE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590010. - COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. RAVI, IPS, SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE ASSISTANCE SERVICE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. SRI. PRASHANT KUMAR THAKUR, IPS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND COMMANDANT GENERAL HOME GUARDS AND DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE, NO.1, A.U.M. ROAD, BENGALURU-560042. - ACCUSED 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY AGA PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2024 IN W.P. NO. 104360/2024 (S-RES) & ETC. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2204-DB CCC No. 100023 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner relies upon the directions issued by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 104360/2024. The Writ Court’s direction is to the respondents to consider the complainant’s candidature for extension/ reappointment in accordance with law and this direction is issued after quashing the order dated 08.12.2023. This Court must observe that though there is a direction to consider the complainant’s candidature for extension/ reappointment, the writ Court has not fixed any timeline for the same. Sri Ramachandra A. Mali, the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that notwithstanding the fact that no timeline is fixed, this Court must consider whether there is deliberate disobedience because after the Writ Court’s direction on 05.09.2024, the respondents have appointed a third person without considering whether the petitioner must be granted extension. The learned counsel canvasses - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2204-DB CCC No. 100023 of 2025 that the fact that the respondents have chosen to appoint another without examining the petitioner’s candidature for extension tantamount to deliberate disobedience. This Court is not persuaded to opine that an exception can be made, in the present circumstances, to the proposition that contempt would not lie even if there is no specific direction, and as such, leaving open all remedies available to the complainant in law, the complaint stands closed. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3