Smt Pramoda Devi Wadiyar v. Smt Shalini Rajneesh

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:36921-DB( CCC(No.(960(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010525122024( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(16 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MRS.(JUSTICE(ANU(SIVARAMAN( AND(( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VENKATESH(NAIK(T( CIVIL(CONTEMPT(PETITION(NO.960(OF(2024((

BETWEEN:((

( , SMT.,PRAMODA,DEVI,WADIYAR, W/O.,LATE,SRI,SRIKANTA,DATTA,,

NARASIMHARAJA,WADIYAR, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS, RESIDING,AT,PALACE,MYSORE, MYSORE-570,001, KARNATAKA., …COMPLAINANT,

,,,,,,,(BY,SMT.,MANASI,KUMAR,FOR,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,SRI,KUSHA,K.,KOUSHIK,,ADVOCATES), AND:( ( Digitally

1., SMT.,SHALINI,RAJNEESH,signedtiby THE,CHIEF,SECRETARY,RAKSHA GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA, Location: VIDHANA,SOUDHA,High0Court BENGALURU-560,001,of0Karnataka KARNATAKA.,, ,

2., SMT.,M.J.,ROOPA, THE,ALLEGED,SECRETARY, SHREE,CHAMUNDESHWARI,, KSHETRA,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY, CHAMUNDI,HILLS,, MYSORE,, KARNATAKA., ,

3., SHRI,SIDDARAMAIAH, THE,ALLEGED,CHAIRMAN, SHREE,CHAMUNDESHWARI,KSHETRA,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:36921-DB( CCC(No.(960(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010525122024( ( ( DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY, CHAMUNDI,HILLS,, MYSORE., ,

4., GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,SECRETARY, HINDU,RELIGIOUS,INSTITUTIONS, AND,CHARITABLE,ENDOWMENTS,DEPARTMENT, 2ND,AND,3RD,FLOOR, MAHADESHWARA,,VARTHA,BHAVAN, VENKATARAO,ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU,-,560,018., …ACCUSED, ,,,,,,,(BY,SRI,I.,TARANATH,POOJARY,,AAG,A/W,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,SMT.,SAVITHRAMMA,,AGA,FOR,PROFORMA,R-4;, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,A-1,IS,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED), , , , THIS,CIVIL,CONTEMPT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTIONS, 11,AND,12,OF,THE,CONTEMPT,OF,COURTS,ACT,,1971,AND,THE,HIGH, COURT, OF, KARNATAKA, (CONTEMPT, OF, COURT, PROCEEDINGS), RULES,, 1981,, PRAYING, TO, TAKE, COGNIZANCE, OF, THE, WILLFUL, DISOBEDIENCE,OF,THE,INTERIM,ORDER,DATED,26-7-2024,PASSED, BY, THE, HON'BLE, HIGH, COURT, OF, KARNATAKA, IN, WRIT, PETITION, NO.19807,OF,2024,PRODUCED,AS,ANNEXURE-G.,,, , THIS, CIVIL, CONTEMPT, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS,DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MRS.,JUSTICE,ANU,SIVARAMAN, and,, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,VENKATESH,NAIK,T, ,

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.4-State.

¶2The present Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging non-compliance with the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19807/2024 on 26.07.2024. The proceedings of this Court on the said date in the writ petition read as follows:

"Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents. Copies to be served. Heard Sri. J. Sai Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner. At request of learned AGA, re-list on 01.08.2024 under the caption 'orders', for consideration of interim prayer. In the meanwhile, without prejudice to both the parties and by way of an interim arrangement, respondents are directed not to give effect to the impugned Act, till the next date of hearing." [

¶3The learned counsel for the complainant submits that, in spite of the existence of the said order, on the ground that the Act had been notified on 01.07.2024, the respondents have proceeded to commit acts of contempt by taking action

under the enactment, which could not have been done in the light of the directions. It is further contended that the interim order stood vacated only on 05.09.2024 and that the actions taken by the State between 26.07.2024 and 05.09.2024 therefore amounted to clear, wilful and continuing acts of contempt and are, therefore, liable to be punished.

¶4The learned counsel for the complainant places reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of the said contentions:

¶1Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries

(P) Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 443

¶2Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 7 SCC 261

¶3All Bengal Excise Licensees' Assn. v. Raghabendra Singh, (2007) 11 SCC 374

¶4D. Karunakar Reddy v. G. Sandeep, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1007

¶5Lavanya C v. Vittal Gurudas Pai, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

¶5The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has placed on record a memo in evidence of the fact that the enactment stood notified as early as on

01.07.2024. It is submitted that the notification dated

28.06.2024 had been gazetted on 01.07.2024 and that the

implementation of the Act was therefore complete when the order dated 26.07.2024 was passed. It is submitted that, there was no order staying any provision of the enactment. This fact was also clearly brought to the notice of this Court. It is therefore submitted that there is no wilful contempt as alleged by the complainant.

¶6We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice that Writ Petition No.19807/2024 is still pending. The challenge in the writ petition is evidently to the Sri Chamundeshwari Kshetra Development Authority Act, 2024. The writ petition was initially moved on 26.07.2024, and the order specifically directed that, by way of an interim arrangement, the respondents shall not give effect to the impugned Act, till the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing, the interim order stood extended. However, on

22.08.2024, the learned Additional Advocate General filed a memo before the Court annexing a copy of the notification giving effect to the Act with effect from 01.07.2024. The Court noticed the said notification and also observed that the implication was that the Act had been given effect to even before the order dated 26.07.2024 was passed. The matter was

thereafter re-listed to 05.09.2024 for consideration of the interim prayer. On 05.09.2024, the matter was heard and the following order was passed: "Heard on I.A.No.1/2024. The application seeking permission to raise additional grounds is allowed, and petitioner is permitted to file amended petition. Memo filed along with the documents is placed on record. Heard Sri. J. Sai Deepak learned counsel representing the petitioner's counsel and Sri. Devadas, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. Learned AAG prays for time to secure instructions and make submission. Re-list on 25.09.2024. Till then, respondent-State shall not alienate any immovable and movable properties belonging to the temple in question. It is made clear that the interim order granted earlier is not continued."

¶7The order dated 05.09.2024 specifically directs the respondent-State not to alienate any movable or immovable properties belonging to the temple in question. It was made explicitly clear that the interim order granted earlier was not continued. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant is that all steps taken pursuant to the notification

of the Act between 26.07.2024 and 05.09.2024 would amount to contempt.

¶8Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the orders passed on 26.07.2024, 01.08.2024,

22.08.2024, 30.08.2024 and, ultimately, on 05.09.2024, we are of the opinion that there was no stay of any provision of the Act before 05.09.2024. Even if it is a fact that the interim order dated 26.07.2024 was vacated only on 05.09.2024, in the light of the orders passed in the writ petition, we are not convinced that there has been any wilful disobedience or contempt of the orders or authority of this Court between 26.07.2024 and

05.09.2024. We are of the opinion that the further aspects have to be considered in the writ petition. The Contempt of Court Case, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

AM/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 23