- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12190-DB CCC No. 480 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 480 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. WEAVERS' HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959 O/AT NO. 2166, NEW NO. 38 1ST FLOOR, AKBAR ROAD OPP. TO HANUMANTHU HOTEL MANDI MOHALA, MYSORE - 570 001 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT L.S. CHELUVARAJ KUMAR AGE 56 YEARS …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAGHUNANDAN RAMANNA CHAIRMAN BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY O/AT: NO. 5, SECOND FLOOR LOOPLANE, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12190-DB CCC No. 480 of 2025 2. LAKSHMIKANTH PAWAR MEMBER SECRETARY BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY O/AT: NO. 5, SECOND FLOOR LOOPLANE, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 …ACCUSED 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (ACCUSED No.1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.2 & SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR PRO FORMA RESPONDENT No.3) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THE ACCUSED HEREIN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, FOR THE WILFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.34290/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12190-DB CCC No. 480 of 2025 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 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34290/2024 (LB-RES). 2. The complainant had filed the said petition impugning a demand notice dated 18.10.2024 whereby, a sum of `2,21,54,800/- was demanded as penalty from the complainant. 3. The learned Single Judge found that the said demand was based on the Government Order dated 22.11.2018 which was set aside by an order dated 05.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.25302/2023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12190-DB CCC No. 480 of 2025 4. Although, the accused-State preferred an appeal against the said order dated 05.09.2024 being W.A.No.37/2025, the Court was informed that there was no interim order granted in the said appeal. Accordingly, the complainant's writ petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 31.01.2025, the disobedience of which is alleged. The Court also observed that in the event the accused succeeds in the appeal (W.A.No.37/2025), the demand would be revived. Additionally, the Court also observed that as a consequence of allowing the writ petition, the accused would necessarily, have to release 30% of the sites to the members of the complainant's society. 5. The accused has filed a counter affidavit enclosing therewith a copy of the order dated 18.08.2025 which indicates that an interim order has been passed in W.A.No.37/2025. 6. Respondent No.1 in the said appeal had agreed to deposit penalty as imposed in terms of the Government Order dated 22.11.2018. This Court had thus ordered that on the said penalty being paid, remaining 30% sites shall be released. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12190-DB CCC No. 480 of 2025 7. There is merit in the contention of the accused that since there is an interim order passed in W.A.No.37/2025, it cannot be stated that the accused has willfully disregarded the order. 8. In view of the above, we find that there is no ground to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The complaint is accordingly closed. We, however, clarify that this order would not preclude the complainant from availing its remedies including to seek clarificatory order, if necessary. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12