Nagarathna & Others vs Siddeshwara & Others

bw + bsl && x + aw - ah / 2 - cw >= bsl ) { c.style.left = x + aw - ah / 2 - cw; } else { c.style.left = x + ah / 2; } if (y + ch + ah / 2 > bh + bst && y + ah / 2 - ch >= bst ) { c.style.top = y + ah / 2 - ch; } else { c.style.top = y + ah / 2; } c.style.visibility = "visible"; } } } function msoCommentHide(com_id) { if(msoBrowserCheck()) { c = document.all(com_id); if (null != c && null == c.length) { c.style.visibility = "hidden"; c.style.left = -1000; c.style.top = -1000; } } } function msoBrowserCheck() { ms = navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE"); vers = navigator.appVersion.substring(ms + 5, ms + 6); ie4 = (ms > 0) && (parseInt(vers) >= 4); return ie4; } if (msoBrowserCheck()) { document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomanchor","background: infobackground"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomoff","display: none"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","visibility: hidden"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","position: absolute"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","top: -1000"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","left: -1000"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","width: 33%"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","background: infobackground"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","color: infotext"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-top: 1pt solid threedlightshadow"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-right: 2pt solid threedshadow"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-bottom: 2pt solid threedshadow"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-left: 1pt solid threedlightshadow"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","padding: 3pt 3pt 3pt 3pt"); document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","z-index: 100"); } // -->

Prasanna B. Varale, CJ

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

On a grievance of non-compliance of the order dated 25.08.2022 made by a learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.6092/2022, the present Contempt Complaint is filed. On issuance of notice, the Respondents particularly the Accused/Respondent No.1-Tahsildar Tumakuru has filed a detailed affidavit along with necessary documents annexed to the same. These Annexures include a copy of the Intimation Notice. Ultimately the Authority namely the Tahsildar has issued an Endorsement dated 04.01.2023 thereby deciding the complainant's representation, a copy whereof is at Anenxure-R1. Translation is also provided.

The submission of learned counsel for the Complainants if accepted leads to this Court critically assessing the Endorsement by analyzing it, to hold that the same is unsustainable. We are unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that this Court cannot exercise a deeper examination of an order made after considering the Representation by subjecting it to critical analysis or assessment on merits. An argument to the contrary expands the scope of contempt jurisdiction. It is needless to say that if the complainants are aggrieved of the subject Endorsement, they may avail appropriate remedies by challenging the same if so advised.

That the order of learned Single Judge having been duly complied with, the complaint of contempt is disposed off. Notice is discharged.