Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7428 (KAR)

VEERANNA B KUBASAD S/O BASAPPA KUBASAD v. PARASHURAM SAVANT

CCC/100332/2024 · 2025-06-05

K V Aravind, R Devdas

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7328-DB CCC No. 100332 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100332 OF 2024 BETWEEN: VEERANNA B. KUBASAD S/O BASAPPA KUBASAD AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.117/B, KONDAWADA ONI, KALAGHATAGI-581204, DIST. DHARWAD. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: PARASHURAM SAVANT AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, KALAGHATAGI-581204. DIST. DHARWAD. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CCC 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, TAKE ACTION AGAINST TO THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT MADE IN WP NO.105280/2017 DATED 04-06-2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND GRANT OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.06.06 12:37:16 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7328-DB CCC No. 100332 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Learned counsel for the respondent-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kalaghatagi has filed a memo along with two documents. Learned counsel submits that the first document is a communication dated 29.05.2017 which has been concealed by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel submits that in the year 2017 itself, the respondent has communicated to the petitioner that they do not have any records in their office to show that works were entrusted to the petitioner and that the petitioner has done the work, and therefore, the petitioner has been called upon to furnish any information to show that there was a work order issued in his favour pursuant to which the petitioner has carried out the work. The second communication dated 27.06.2024 has been issued by the respondent pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Here again, the respondent has reiterated what was said in the earlier communication - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7328-DB CCC No. 100332 of 2024 dated 29.05.2017 and has declined to entertain the claim of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner however seeks to draw the attention of this court to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge where the respondent was directed to consider the representation dated 05.02.2016 submitted by the petitioner, while taking cognizance of the directions issued by the Joint Director and the Chief Accountant, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad. 3. In the considered opinion of this court, when the respondent has given a reply clearly stating that despite a communication being made to the petitioner on 29.05.2017 calling upon him to furnish the documents to show the work order issued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner having failed to produce such document, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim that respondent has committed contempt of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7328-DB CCC No. 100332 of 2024 4. Having regard to the two communications dated 29.05.2017 and 27.06.2024, since the respondent has clearly stated that there are no records in their office to show that work order was issued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has done the work, we do not see any need to pursue this contempt petition. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to raise a challenge to the two communications. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed while reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the two communications dated 29.05.2017 and 27.06.2024. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE MBS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7