Venkatesh A Kademani vs. The Executive Engineer

Facts

The complainant, Venkatesh A Kademani, filed a contempt petition against the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sirsi Division, alleging violation of a High Court order dated February 22, 2023, in WP No. 100956/2023. The original order directed the respondent to consider the complainant's representation dated September 12, 2022, in accordance with law. The complainant argued that the respondent failed to consider his representation and that the issued endorsement was not in accordance with law, asserting that submitted documents were not reviewed. The respondent, through the Government Advocate, contended that notices were issued on June 15, 2023, and July 4, 2023, requesting GST payment records, but the complainant failed to respond. Consequently, the respondent considered the representation with available material and issued an endorsement on January 29, 2024, stating the case could not be considered, thus claiming compliance.

Held

The Court held that there was substantial compliance with its order dated February 22, 2023, in WP No. 100956/2023. The original order directed the respondent to consider the complainant's representation dated September 12, 2022, and pass appropriate orders. A perusal of the endorsement dated January 29, 2024, indicated that the representation submitted by the complainant had indeed been considered. Therefore, the Court found substantial compliance with its previous order. The contempt proceedings were dropped. The complainant was granted liberty to challenge the endorsement dated January 29, 2024, if aggrieved. No specific GST Act sections or rules were discussed in relation to the contempt proceedings themselves, only the procedural compliance with the court's prior order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent/accused has committed contempt of the High Court's order dated February 22, 2023, by failing to properly consider the complainant's representation dated September 12, 2022, and by issuing an endorsement that is not in accordance with law, thereby violating the directive to consider the representation and address the grievance in accordance with law? Petitioner's Contention: The respondent/accused has not considered the representation, and the endorsement issued is not in accordance with law. The documents and records submitted by the complainant were not looked into by the respondent/accused, constituting contempt of the court's order. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondent/accused issued notices on June 15, 2023, and July 4, 2023, requesting GST payment records. Despite receiving these notices, the complainant failed to reply or appear. Consequently, the respondent considered the representation with the available material and issued an endorsement dated January 29, 2024, indicating the case could not be considered, which constitutes compliance with the court's order.