- 1 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200042 OF 2025 C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200018 OF 2025 IN WA NO.200042/2025: BETWEEN: HUTTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HUTTI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584115. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJ MOHAMMED S/O HASSAIN SAB AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O NEAR JAMIA MASJID, HUTTI TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584115. 2. FAIMEEDA D/O RAJ MOHAMMED AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O NEAR JAMIA MASJID, HUTTI TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SR. ADV. FOR SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 23-09-2024 PASSED IN WP NO.203630/2018 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. IN CCC NO.200018/2025: BETWEEN: 1. RAJ MOHAMMED S/O HASSAIN SAB AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O NEAR JAMIA MASJID, HUTTI TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 2. FAIMEEDA D/O RAJ MOHAMMED AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O NEAR JAMIA MASJID, HUTTI TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHILPA R. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HUTTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD., HUTTI TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR – 584101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 & 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT IN SO FAR AS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.203630/2018 DATED 23.09.2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE – A AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THE RESPONDENT WITH IMPRISONMENT. - 3 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 THIS PETITION AND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT” THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.203630/2018 (S-RES), wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was allowed. The contempt petition in C.C.C.No.200018/2025 is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/original writ petitioners alleging willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that, the respondent No.1, is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.471 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas situated at Hutti Village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District. The - 4 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 appellant acquired the land of the respondents for the purpose of its activity. It was assured to the land owners that they would be given an employment for the loss of their land. It is averred that the respondent No.1 and his brother were living together and the respondent No.1 being physically weak requested the appellant to provide employment to his nephew. It is further submitted that the request of respondent No.1 was not considered and he was appointed under the land loser quota on 07.11.2014. Since the respondent No.1 was physically unfit to work underground in the appellant company, he gave representation to provide employment to his nephew initially and later to his daughter-the respondent No.2, which was not considered. Hence, sought writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the prayer to provide an employment to respondent No.2. 3. The appellant did not file any objections to the writ petition. However, they opposed the petition contending that the appointment is provided to the - 5 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 respondent No.1, as per the policy and he could not do the work, hence he was terminated from the service on 08.07.2016. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and issued direction to the appellant to issue an appointment to the respondent No.2 within a period of two months. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. Sri. Veerangouda Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in directing the appellant to provide appointment to respondent No.2 under the in a land-loser quota which was already considered and appointment was provided to respondent No.1. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has not produced any documents to substantiate that he is physically weak and is unable to work. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 was terminated for - 6 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 being unauthorizedly absent on 08.07.2016 from duty, which has not been challenged. Hence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued directions for further appointment. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, Sri. P. Vilas Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.Nitesh Padiyal, appearing for the respondent for Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the respondent No.1 has submitted representation dated 27.02.2015 expressing his inability to accept the appointment on health grounds. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 submitted another representation dated 26.05.2016 requesting the appellant to provide employment to respondent No.2 under the category of land-loser. However, the said representations were never considered and without any enquiry, order dated 08.07.2016 was passed claiming that services of respondent No.1 are terminated. The entire procedure adopted by the appellant is contrary to their policy. It is - 7 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 also submitted that the respondent No.1 is a disabled person due to his health and hence it is unfair on the part of the appellant to deny the employment to respondent No.2. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. Punjab Electricity Board,1. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the materials available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material available on record. 8. The pleading and evidence on record indicates that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.471 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas situated at Hutti Village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District and the said 1 AIR 2008 SC 990 - 8 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 land was acquired by the appellant for the purpose of carrying on its business activities. The appellant has evolved a policy of providing employment to the land- losers as per the HGML Recruitment (Appointment of Land-losers/Family Members) Rules, 2012. The object of the said rules reads as under; “Rule 2: The object of these rules is to appoint to land-losers/dependants or eligible family members of Khatedar whose land have been acquired by for the Company, and to help the Khatedar/his family for their livelihood.” 9. The Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules provides definition clause and Rule 4 contemplates condition for appointment. The said rule clearly indicates that one job shall be considered to the Khatedar or his family member as per the Educational qualification and the appointment shall be initially for a period of two years on probation and shall be placed as per the Company requirement and service conditions will be regulated as per the rules. The aforesaid rule makes it very clear that the land- - 9 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 loser/Khatedar has a right to seek an appointment with the appellant Company either to himself or a dependant member of his family. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is a land-loser and is entitled for an appointment and considering the same, he has been appointed on 07.11.2014 as per Annexure-B. 10. The material available on record indicates that the respondent No.1 has submitted a representation to the appellant dated 27.02.2015 at Annexure-C. The said representation was submitted on the ground that he is medically unfit and is unable to accept the said employment. He has made a request to provide appointment to his nephew. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the aforesaid representation was submitted to the appellant just within two months of his appointment. He has submitted another representation dated 26.05.2016 at Annexure-D requesting to provide the said employment to his daughter the respondent No.2 herein. It is not the case of the appellant that the representations - 10 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 at Annexures-C and D, were considered and rejected. Admittedly, the request for the appointment of respondent No.2 was pending consideration before the appellate Authority. In the mean time, the appellant passed the order dated 08.07.2016 terminating the services of respondent No.1 on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent. The material available on record indicate that the respondent No.1 has expressed his inability to accept the appointment due to health issues and without considering his request the appellant has proceeded to terminate his services which is impermissible. Further the order of termination is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, now the appellant cannot refuse the legitimate claim of the respondents of employment under the category of a land-loser. The judgment relied by the learned Senior Counsel has no application to the case on hand as the respondent is not disabled person. 11. The learned Single has considered the ultimate object of the rules and recorded the finding that the - 11 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 respondents are entitled to one job under the land-loser category and directed the appellant to provide an appointment to respondent No.2. The aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available on record calling for any interference in this intra-Court appeal. The learned Single Judge has already made it clear that the order passed in the instant case is considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case taking into consideration the fact that the respondent No.1 could not work in the mines and this order shall not be treated as a precedent. We also make it very clear that the order of the learned Single judge and this Court cannot be treated as a precedent in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. 12. The contempt petition in C.C.C.No.200018/2025 filed by the respondents is closed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to file a contempt petition, if need arises. The appellant is directed to comply with the direction of - 12 - WA NO.200042/2025 C/W CCC NO.200018 OF 2025 the learned Single Judge within a period two months from today. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER i) The Writ Appeal is dismissed. ii) The Contempt Petition in CCC.No.200018/2025 is closed with liberty as stated above. iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR CT: PS