- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.24464 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THE PRESIDENT HAVING OFFICE AT NOSAGERE GRAMAPANCHAYATH NOSAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 REP. BY SMT. BHARATHAMMA 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HAVING OFFICE AT NOSAGERE GRAMAPANCHAYATH NOSAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 REP. BY SMT. BHARATHAMMA 3. THE SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT NOSAGERE GRAMAPANCHAYATH NOSAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA S., ADVOCATE) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJ SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NOSAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 2. INNOVA AGRI BIO PARK LTD. NO.422, 8TH CROSS DOLLARS COLONY RMV 2ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY SRI. G VENAKATASUBRAMANIYAM (MAIN PROJECT HEAD) 3. SRI. K S RAVI DIRECTOR INNOVA AGRI BIO PARK LTD. REPRESENTED BY SMT. N SHEELA ASSISTANT SECRETARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE NO.2 NO.14/3 KIDB 2ND FLOOR CFC BUILDING N T ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.SHIVANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 IS SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 12.04.2019, 16.04.2019, 26.04.2019, 28.05.2019 AND 30.05.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED AGAINST THIS PETITIONERS; iii) QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 CONTEMPT NOTICE ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AT ANNEXURE-H; iv) AWARD COSTS, ETC THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ’B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/ defendant Nos. 1 to 3, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, with the following prayers: “i) Allow the Above Writ Petition. ii) Call for the records in O.S.No.353/2018 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur and set aside the orders dated 12/04/2019, 16/04/2019, 26/04/2019, 28/05/2019 and 30/05/2019 at Annexure A, passed against this petitioners. iii) Quash the Show cause notice and Contempt Notice issued Against the petitioners at Annexure H. iv) Award costs; v) Issue any other writ, pass any such other or directions that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petition seeks to challenge five orders passed by the learned Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 makes two submissions. Firstly, he submits that the Impugned Orders cannot be complied with, they are dehors the law. Secondly, he contends that the order arose out of an order dated 21.03.2019, which was challenged by the petitioners/ defendants Nos.1 to 3 before the High Court in Writ Petition No.14761/2019(GM-CPC). Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 contends that the learned Trial Court has not decided I.A.No.6, in accordance with law. 4. None appears for the respondents, despite service. Given the pendency of the matter for the last more than six years, this Court deems it expedient to decide the matter today. 5. A review of the impugned order dated 21.03.2019 reveals that the learned Trial Court had passed an order to petitioners/ defendants No.1 to 3 to take steps to recover arrears of taxes from Factories, Industries and Companies, situated within the limits of a particular Grama Panchayath. 6. This order was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.14761/2019. The challenge of the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 was repelled along with costs - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 from their own pockets to the Advocates’ Association, Malur, (Library Fund). The co-ordinate Bench also found that if the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 needed additional time to comply with the order, nothing prevented them from filing an application for extension of time, however, they failed to do so and instead, came to the High Court challenging such an order. It is apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 as below: “11. The learned Judge, taking into consideration the entire material on record, exercising inherent powers, passed the impugned Order. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, by the impugned Order. If the petitioners really wanted to discharge their institutional responsibility and constitutional obligation, in all fairness, should have filed an application or Memo before the Court seeking reasonable time to file the report, if they feel that they can’t submit the report within seven days, as directed. Instead of doing so, the petitioners are before this Court by filing writ petition. This is nothing but daring ride on the Court, which cannot be encouraged. This Court appreciates the courage and commitment of the learned Judge who passed the impugned Order, in exercise of inherent power under the provisions of Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. 12. In view of the above, petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned Order in exercise of powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners (i.e., in total Rs.30,000/-) payable from their own pockets to the Advocates’ Association, Malur (Library - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 fund), before the Trial Court, on or before the next date of hearing, failing which the Trial Court is at liberty to recover the same from defendant Nos.1 to 3, in accordance with law. Liberty is also reserved to the President, Advocates’ Association, Malur, to initiate proceedings to recover the aforesaid amount, in accordance with law.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. The five orders that have been sought to be challenged are all orders which require the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 to comply with the order passed on 21.03.2019. These are set out below: Order dated 21.03.2019: “Defendant No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to take necessary steps to recover the arrears of tax from factories, industries and companies situated within the limits of Nosagere Grama Panchayath either by impleading the said companies in the suit or by way of other mode. It is left to them to opt any mode. But it is mandatory to defendant No.1 to 3 to collect the tax from the concern and to deposit the same before the court. Defendant No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to report the steps taken in this regard within 7 days from today. Defendant No.4 cannot escape from the Tax liability on the basis of production of the list. It shall pay the proper tax as per the proper calculation. The plaintiff, who is also member of the Gramapanchayath (as per the say of the advocate for plaintiff) has done the act to help the society by way of filing this suit. The plaintiff shall not withdraw the suit until fulfillment of the required act.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 Order dated 12.04.2019: “Till today adv for D1 to D3 has not produced any stay order from HHCK. Hence, it appears that the order passed by this dated 21/03/2019 passed by this court, apart from this, it is checked on the internet the said writ petition is dismissed on 5/4/2019 itself. Issue show cause notice to D1 to D3 and contempt notice to D1 and D3 for non-compliance of order of this Court, with a penalty of Rs. 1000/- per day since 21-03-2019 payable to this court. Call on 16/4.” Order dated 16.04.2019: “S/C/Notice and Contempt notice are served. I.A 4 U/O 17 R 1 and 2 of CPC is filed seeking time to answer to notices. Heard. Time is granted on cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the plaintiffs. But Adv for D1 to D3 has not sought time to comply the orders dated 21/03/2019 (except the period from 5-04-2019 to 12-04-2019). Hence D1 to D3 are liable to pay cost of Rs.19,000/- to be deposited before the Court on or before 22/04/2019. Time is granted till 22/04/2019. Call on 22/04.” Order dated 26.04.2019: “Obj to IA 7 is filed. memo is filed by D1 to D3 and it is accepted by reply to Show cause notice as reply to contempt notice. I.A No. 9 U/s 151 CPC is filed. Seeking time. Adv for Plf submits to file obj. Heard and allowed on cost of Rs.300/-Comply of orders by 28/5.” Order dated 28.05.2019: “Adv for D4 and 5 has filed memo with internet order Copy of HHCK in WP 1476/19. The Adv for D1 to D3 has filed memo along with Demand Draft Nos. 930604-06 drawn at Canara Bank. Heard orders. The advocate for defendant No. 4 and 5 has filed memo along with order passed in Writ Petition No. 14761/2019 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. I have perused the order of the Hon'ble High Court. In para No. 12, it self that the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners (in total Rs.30,000/-) payable from their own pockets to the advocate association, Malur (library fund) before the trial court on or before the next hearing. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.04.2019. Till today, the advocate for defendant No. 1 to 3/ writ petitioners has not produced the order passed in writ petition. Today also, the order is not produced by the writ petitioners or their advocate. It appears that they have tried to suppress the said order as well as cost imposed therein. But, after production of the said order by the advocate for defendant No. 4 and 5, the advocate for defendant No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the case has be passed over. Accordingly, the case is called at 3.00 pm. Now the advocate for defendant No. 1 to 3 has produced memo along with three DD's pertaining to Canara bank bearing No. 930604-06, dated 26.04.2019 for amount Rs.10,000/- each. On perusal of the said demand draft 26/04/2019 for amount of Rs.10,000/- each. On perusal of the said demand draft, it appears that they are purchased by Bharathamma and Sindhu. At this time, it is asked to the advocate for Defendant No. 1 to 3 about the payment of cost out of their own pockets of the writ petitioners as directed in the order. But he has not answered about the same to the satisfaction of this court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the writ petitioners have not complied order of the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka in the Writ petition. It is also to be considered that as per the said demand draft, the writ petitioners knew about the order as well as cost on or before 26.04.2019. But they have not intimated this court till today and even today. Since 5.4.2019, there are five hearing dates including today. Therefore, the writ petitioners have to pay further cost of Rs.5,000/- each (in total Rs.15,000/-) to the advocate association, Malur by tomorrow since they have not obeyed the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In case of default of the said cost, the writ petitioners will have to pay further cost of Rs. 500/- each per day.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 Order dated 30.05.2019: “I.A 10 U/s 151 of CPC is filed. Perused averments in affidavit. They are not properly understood. Hence I.A 10 is rejected with cost of Rs. 100/- memo by D1 to D3 filed a/w circular of concerned department. Memo by D1 to D3 in respect to counterfoil is filed. It appears that the cost of Rs. 30,000/- is paid out of their own pocket as per the order of HHCK. Memo is also filed by D1 to 2 a/w notice dated 11/04/2019 and 12/04/2019. But till today they have not produced the same and delay is not explained. Hence the memo a/w the Notice is taken on record on cost of Rs. 300/-payable to plaintiff. Demand draft dated 26/04/2019 bearing Nos.930604 to 06 for Rs.10,000/- each of Canara Bank are ordered to be physically handed over to the President, Advocate Association, Malur and taken his signatures in the order sheet and kept the copies of the same in this case. As per the circular dated 27/05/2019 of Karnataka Government, IA 7 is kept in abeyance. IA 11 U/s 17 R1 is filed. Adv for D4 and 5 has orally objected. Heard. The reason mentioned in the accompanying affidavit are not satisfactory. Already there is order dated 28/05/2019 stating about the reason. Hence IA No.11 is rejected with cost of Rs.100/- For object to IA -8 by Ptf By 12/6.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3, once again, reiterates that he cannot comply with this order. He further submits that he has filed an application setting out the reasons for non-compliance of the said order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 9. A perusal of the Impugned Order shows that the learned Trial Court, in addition to imposing costs for non-compliance, has also rejected the application (I.A.No.6) filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3, by stating that since the order is passed in public interest and they have not been complied, the application stands rejected. No reasons or findings have been given by the learned Trial Court in this order. 10. It is settled law that any order of a Court must contain findings. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta1 has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is reproduced below: “11. It is settled law that reasons must be given for every judgment passed by a Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta has held that it is the duty of the 1 (2009) 12 SCC 609 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is below: "8. "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief. in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the [High Court's judgment] not sustainable. 6. Even in respect of administrative orders. Lord Denning. M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742: (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA)] observed: (WLR p. 750 G). 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." [Emphasis supplied] 10.1. The proposition of law that reasoning is required to be given in judicial pronouncements and by authorities, even for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 quasi-judicial decisions has been discussed in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.2. The relevant extract is set out below: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision- making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision- makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." [Emphasis Supplied] 11. It is well settled law that findings have to be necessarily given by a Court. Even in quasi-judicial proceedings, findings have to be given. However, the order of 22.04.2019 decides two applications, viz., I.A.No.5, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to direct the fourth respondent to deposit the amount, and I.A.No.6, also filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to recall its orders dated 12.04.2019 and 16.04.2019. While I.A.No.5 was allowed, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2727 WP No. 24464 of 2019 indisputably, I.A.No.6 was rejected without assigning any reasons. 12. The order that was passed by the learned Trial Court on 21.03.2019, as stated above, was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.14761/2019 (GM-CPC), and this Court by its order dated 05.04.2019, dismissed the petition with costs and the said order has attained finality. 13. The petition is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court to decide I.A.No.6, by giving findings for its decision, in accordance with law. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all costs imposed under the impugned order of the learned Trial Court upto today have been paid. The statement of learned counsel is taken on record. In case any costs have not been paid, petitioners shall pay the same, within a week from today. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA