- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2544-DB CCC No. 100381 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 100386 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 100381 OF 2024 C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100386 OF 2024 IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100381 OF 2024 BETWEEN: VARDHMAN IRRIGATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SURESH, S/O LAKKAPPA SAPTASAGAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC.: CONTRACTOR, R/O. HALLUR VILLAGE, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591312. - COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVANAGOUDA S. PATIL, THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BELAGAUM POLICE QUARTERS, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590001. 2. SRI VINOD MAVARAKAR, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, 245/2, MAIN ROAD, NEAR STATION HALL, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. - ACCUSED 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY A.A.G. DHARWAD BENCH. - PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENT; NOTICE TO A1 & A2-SERVED) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2544-DB CCC No. 100381 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 100386 of 2024 THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2024 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 107051/2023 (GM-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100386 OF 2024 BETWEEN: GANESH MARKETING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GIRISH S/O SANGAPPA JINAGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC.: CONTRACTOR, R/O. MUDALAGI VILLAGE, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591312. - COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVANAGOUDA S. PATIL, THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BELGAUM POLICE QUARTERS, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590001. 2. SRI VINOD MAVARAKAR, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, 245/2, MAIN ROAD, NEAR STATION HALL, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. - ACCUSED 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. A.A.G. DHARWAD BENCH. - PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENT; NOTICE TO A1 & A2-SERVED) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2024 PASSED IN W.P. NO.107049/2023 (GM-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC., THESE CONTEMPT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2544-DB CCC No. 100381 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 100386 of 2024 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 complainants have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in their respective petitions in W.P. No. 107051/2023 and W.P. No. 107049/2023. The Writ Court has disposed of both the petitions on 04.04.2024 directing the respondents to consider the complainants’ representation identifying the specific area which would require the respondents’ examination. With issuance of notice of this complaint to the respondents, they have initially filed copies of Endorsement dated 17.01.2025. However, with the learned counsel for the complainants contending that the Endorsement dated 17.01.2025 does not comply with the writ Court’s directions for consideration of the complainants representation on specific questions, the respondents have now filed a copy of the Endorsement dated 23.01.2025. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2544-DB CCC No. 100381 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 100386 of 2024 It is seen that the first respondent has considered the complainant’s representation as against issues identified by the Writ Court. Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, the learned counsel for the complainants, submits that this Court must examine whether the respondents must answer charge for deliberate disobedience as the Endorsement dated 23.01.2025 is despite specific directions. This Court, on reading of the order dated 23.01.2025, is only persuaded to hold that the merits of the consideration cannot be examined given the expanse of the jurisdiction in contempt proceedings and the complainants must work out their remedies in properly instituted proceedings. Reserving such liberty to the complainants and subject to all just exceptions, the complaints are closed. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11