Karnataka High Court
Sri.G.S.Ravishankar vs Sri. Mahesh on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5316-DB
CCC No. 945 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CCC NO. 945 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G.S.RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. LATE G.S. SHIVANANJAPPA,
'SHIVA SUNDARA KANASU',
80 FEET ROAD,
A M PALYA,
SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
Digitally
signed by ...COMPLAINANT
PRABHAKAR
SWETHA (BY SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
KRISHNAN
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. SRI MAHESH
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THE CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED,
A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE
SURFACE WATER DATA CENTER,
3RD AND 4TH FLOORS,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5316-DB
CCC No. 945 of 2024
2. SRI PANIRAJ
THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,
CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED,
TUMAKUR - 572 012.
3. SRI GIRISH BABU S.,
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVISION ,
CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED,
KUNIGAL ROAD,
TUMAKUR - 572 012.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
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, PRYAING TO INITIATE ACTION
FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
HAVING DELIBERATELY AND WILL-FULLY DISOBEYED THE
ORDERS/DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
13.06.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.24959/2022 AND
PUNISH THE ACCUSED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5316-DB
CCC No. 945 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao for the
complainant and learned advocate Mr. B.R. Prashanth for the
respondents.
2. In this petition filed seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it is in respect of the
following directions of learned Single Judge passed in order dated
13.06.2024 while disposing of the writ petition, the breach and the
consequential contempt is complained of,
"5. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and rival
submissions, the respondents are
hereby directed to address the
grievances of the petitioner and
consider his representation dated
07.09.2022 at Annexure-R and pass
appropriate orders bearing in mind the
material on record produced by the
petitioner and in accordance with law,
within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order."
NC: 2025:KHC:5316-DB
3. The disputes between the parties as sought to be agitated in
the writ petition arose from the contract executed between them.
What was prayed by the petitioner was to direct the respondents to
consider the representation dated 07.09.2022. It was next prayed
to direct respondent No.1 to accept and approve the calculations
provided by the petitioner and the third prayer was to direct the
respondents to fix the rate for the additional and substituted work
carried out by the petitioner and consequentially to make payment
in that regard.
3.1 The petition came to be disposed of with the directions as
aforequoted. What the learned Single Judge directed was to
require the respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner
and consider his representation dated 07.09.2025.
4. In response to issuance of notice, the respondents have
appeared to file their statement of objections-cum-memo of
compliance where it is inter alia stated that the respondents have
considered the representation dated 07.09.2022 and an
order/endorsement has been passed on 06.11.2024. The copy of
the said endorsement dated 06.11.2024 figures on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:5316-DB
4.1 The further objections were filed by the complainant to the
said endorsement countering what is stated in the endorsement. As
per the said endorsement dated 06.11.2024 the complainant is
intimated that he may execute a supplementary agreement for the
extra work approved which has the financial implication.
5. The complainant is thus requested to execute the
supplementary agreement. It is to be recollected that the direction
of the learned Single Judge was to consider "the representation of
the petitioner". By taking aforesaid stand, the representation is
considered, which could be said to be marking compliance of the
directions of the learned Single Judge.
6. The contempt petition is not liable to be furthered anymore. It
will not survive.
7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
However, if the petitioner has any grievance about the merit
contents of the said endorsement dated 06.11.2024 and the
stand/action taken by the respondent-authority, it is open for the
complainant to execute appropriate independent proceedings in
NC: 2025:KHC:5316-DB
accordance of law in respect of which however, this Court does not
express any opinion on merits.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
CR
