Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4059 (KAR)

S. SANTOSH KUMAR v. MR. K T THIMMAPPA

CCC/422/2025 · 2026-04-17

C M Poonacha

Contempt Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21190-DB CCC No. 422 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 422 OF 2025 BETWEEN: S. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O P SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT INDIRA NAGAR SEEBINAKERE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA 577 432 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. UMAPATHI S, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. K T THIMMAPPA THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MULUBAGILU GRAMA PANCHAYATH RANJADAKATTE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN 577432. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21190-DB CCC No. 422 of 2025 THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATED AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR COMMITTING THE CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF WP NO.6266/2023 DATED 28.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 28.03.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6266/2023 (LB-RES). The Muslim Education Society [writ petitioner] had filed the said petition, impugning a notice dated 03.03.2023, calling upon it to produce certain documents to justify the construction of a Mosque and Madarasa. The said petition was disposed of with the following directions: "[A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file with the respondent, within eight weeks from today, a detailed explanation, enclosing a certified copy of this order, as to why there must be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21190-DB CCC No. 422 of 2025 conclusion of the enquiry in its favour with liberty to seek sanction of the plan for the standing structure in the event there is any ambiguity about the purpose for which the license was granted at the first instance and renewed later. [B] The respondent, without any haste, and after due opportunity to all the concerned, including the intervener, must conclude the enquiry in the light of this Court’s observation as aforesaid. " 2. This Court had directed the concerned respondents to conduct an enquiry in the light of the Court's observations. 3. The accused has filed a compliance affidavit affirming that the Grama Panchayath had concluded the enquiry and passed the resolution, a copy of which is enclosed. The said resolution indicates that a show cause notice dated 03.02.2023 was issued to the writ petitioner, and that the writ petitioner responded to the said show cause notice on 24.02.2023. Further, another show cause notice dated 03.03.2023 was issued to the writ petitioner pursuant to the Grama Panchayath's resolution dated 03.03.2023. The writ petitioner responded to the said show cause notice on 11.03.2023. 4. The Grama Panchayath's resolution further indicates that meetings were held on 25.04.2024, 30.07.2024, 05.08.2024 and 11.09.2024. It was also noted that, upon verification of all records, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21190-DB CCC No. 422 of 2025 the Grama Panchayath had not granted any permission to construct the Masjid or any building. That there are no site or building plans for the construction of the building. The writ petitioner had not submitted any application seeking permission for the construction of the building, and therefore, it was decided to take action against the writ petitioner. 5. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any proceedings for willful disobedience of the order impugned are required to be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. The complaint is, accordingly, closed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30