Shri Vidyadas Babaji S/O Rameshwara Das of Ramanand… — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Shri Vidyadas Babaji S/O Rameshwara Das of Ramanand… — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' alleged conduct on 16.03.2025 — entering with their own pandith and hindering routine daily pooja, and cutting power and water supply to the complainant's residence — constituted blatant violation of the interim order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.105448/2019 (GM-R/C). +1 more

Court's answer

The allegation that on 16.03.2025 the respondents entered with their own pandith and hindered routine daily pooja is not supported by any document and is only assertion of the complainant; no police complaint was lodged; the allegation of cutting power and water supply to the complainant's residence is likewise not supported by any material.

Ratio / Principle

Contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised by the Courts sparingly, and the complainant has to make out a minimum prima facie case for issuance of notice.

Key takeaways

Other than issuing legal notice dated 16.03.2025, the complainant had not initiated any action or proceedings.ratio¶4
The complainant had not made out a case even to issue notice to the respondents/accused.ratio¶5
The contempt petition was dismissed.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No. 100112 of 2025, Dharwad Bench; oral order per Justice S G Pandit, bench of S G Pandit and C.M. Poonacha; decided 09.04.2025) filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by a priest/Pradhan Archak of Kishkinda Kshetra, Anegundi, alleging blatant violation of the interim order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.No.105448/2019 (GM-R/C), whereby the respondents were restrained from creating hindrance or obstruction to his pooja/Archak duties in the subject temple and from taking precipitate/coercive steps against him in relation to the subject temple or his residence. Alleged breaches: on 16.03.2025 the respondents entered with their own pandith and hindered routine daily pooja, and power and water supply to the complainant's residence was being cut with ulterior motive. Held: the allegations are not supported by any document or material and are mere assertion of the complainant; no police complaint was lodged; apart from a legal notice dated 16.03.2025 no action or proceedings were initiated. Contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and a complainant must make out a minimum prima facie case even for issuance of notice; the complainant had not made out a case even to issue notice to the respondents/accused. Contempt petition dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6351-DB CCC No. 100112 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100112 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SHRI VIDYADAS BABAJI S/O. RAMESHWARA DAS OF RAMANAND SAMPRADAYA, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST PRADHAN ARCHAK OF KISHKINDA KSHETRA, ANGEGUNDI, ANJANADRI HILLS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CHIKKARAMPUR VILLAGE, R/O. SHRI ANJANEYA TEMPLE, OF KISHKINDA KSHETRA, ANEGUNDI, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CHIKKARAMPUR VILLAGE, TAL. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227.

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE.)

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

SMT. V. RASHMI MAHESH, IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (MUZARAI) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

SMT. V. RASHMI MAHESH, IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (ENDOWMENT) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

J. KUMARA GURUBARAN, IAS, THE COMMISSIONER,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6351-DB CCC No. 100112 of 2025

DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENT, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560001.

SHRI. NALINI ATUL, IAS, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

SHRI. RAM L ARASIDDI, IAS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

SHRI. RAHUL RATNAM PANDEY, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

SHRI. RANGAPPA DODDAMANI, THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, TAL. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227.

SHRI. PRAKASH RAO, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (ADMINISTRATOR), HULEGEMMA DEVI TEMPLE, TAL. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

SHRI. U. NAGARAJ, THE TAHASILDAR, GANGAVATHI, TAL. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227.

…ACCUSED

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY AGA.

…PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT.

(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE R10.)

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9/ACCUSED 1 TO 9 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT FOR BLATANT VIOLATION OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 14/02/2023 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.105448/2019 (GM-R/C) (ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,.

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6351-DB CCC No. 100112 of 2025

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

This contempt petition is filed under section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging disobedience of interim order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.105448/2019 (GM-R/C). The interim order reads as follows:

“Under these circumstances, in the light of the aforesaid interim orders passed by this Court, by way of an interim arrangement, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents not to create any hindrance or obstruction to the petitioner for performing poojas, Archak duties etc., in the said subject temple and also permit him continue to do so without any interruption, impediment or hindrance from the respondents, its officials or anyone else. It is further directed that pending disposal of these writ petitions, the respondents shall not take any precipitate/coercive steps against the petitioner in relation to the subject temple or his residence in any manner whatsoever.

It is made clear that this interim arrangement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to further orders of this Court and final outcome of these petitions.”

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6351-DB CCC No. 100112 of 2025

The above interim order would direct the respondents that they shall not take any

precipitative/coercive steps against the petitioner in relation to the subject temple or his residence, in any manner.

It is alleged by the complainant that on 16.03.2025 the respondents entered along with their own pandith and hindered the routine daily pooja, which is blatant violation of the interim order dated 14.02.2023. The above allegation is not supported by any document. It is only assertion of the complainant. The complainant has not lodged any police complaint also. It is also alleged that the respondents were cutting power and water supply to the complainant’s residence with an ulterior motive and complainant is forced to remove himself from the premises, which allegation is also not supported by any material.

Except issuing legal notice dated 16.03.2025, the complainant has not initiated any action or proceedings. The contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised by the Courts sparingly. The complainant has to make out minimum prima facie case for issuance of notice.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6351-DB CCC No. 100112 of 2025

In the instant case, we are of the considered view

that the complainant has not made out a case even to issue

notice to the respondents/accused. In the above

circumstances, the above contempt petition is dismissed.

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

MRK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10