Disposed

Dr.K.P.Gopalkrishna v. Jai Shankar

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026CCC/1446/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil contempt alleging disobedience of an interim order to restore water supply to a school institution. The court construed 'restore' as 'provide', accepted counsel's undertaking that water would be supplied within ten days on payment of demand charges excluding regularization and prorata charges, and closed the complaint with liberty to revive.

What did the court decide?

Complaint closed; liberty to revive if water not supplied within ten days on payment of Rs.9,86,900/- (demand less regularization and prorata charges).

Dr.K.P.Gopalkrishna Vs Jai Shankar — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19371-DB CCC No. 1446 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1446 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. K.P. GOPALKRISHNA S/O. E.K. PADMANABHAN AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS CHAIRMAN NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS BENGALURU - 560 010

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI AMITH DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SURESH V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

JAI SHANKAR FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS CHIEF ENGINEER (MAINTENANCE, EAST ZONE) BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2^ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶15

... ACCUSED

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:19371-DB CCC No. 1446 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.1 & SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF ACCUSED & FRAME THE CHARGES AGAINST ALL THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.07.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.18914/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience to the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18914/2024. In terms of the said order, accused No.1 was directed to "restore the water supply to the petitioner’s institution" on payment of the amount, other than prorata charges and regularisation charges.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:19371-DB CCC No. 1446 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 submits that there is no connection for water supply and therefore, restoration would not arise.

¶33

Prima facie, the said explanation is not acceptable considering that the complainant had filed the writ petition, inter alia, impugning a demand notice dated 30.05.2024.

¶34

The demand notice indicates that it also included compounding charges of 36,36,627/- for regularization and prorata charges are 72,73,254/- amongst other charges. The learned Single Judge's direction is for restoration of water supply subject to the complainant paying the demand charges other than those charges. The word 'restore' in the context means, 'provide'.

¶35

The complainant has also produced a photocopy of the cheque for an amount of `9,86,900/- dated 13.01.2025 which according to the complainant was a total amount of the demand less the compounding charges for regularization and prorata charges.

¶36

Whislt it may be correct that water connection has not been granted by an application and the complainant's application for the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:19371-DB CCC No. 1446 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

same is pending; in the aforesaid context, the order dated 16.07.2024 can only be construed to mean a direction to supply water on payment of the said charges.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 submits

¶42

that water would be supplied within a period of ten days on payment of the charges as mentioned aforesaid (that is a sum of 1,18,96,781/- less 36,36,627/- and less `72,73,254/-)

¶43

In view of the above, the complaint is closed with a liberty to the complainant to revive the same if water is not supplied by the accused.

¶44

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶45

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶46

AHB

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Dr.K.P.Gopalkrishna v. Jai Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.P.Gopalkrishna v. Jai Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Highways Authority of India, Vs Aluru Hanumantharayappa

Sri Mahabaleshwar Vs Sri Manoj Kumar

Smt. Jayanthi Vs Dr K v Trilok Chandra I a S

L and T Finance Limited Vs Cornerstone Properties Private Limited

Mohan Babu Vs Sri Jagadeesha G

Sarfaraz Munaf Vs Mr Siraj Ummer