Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram P

Held

The Court held that the contempt proceedings are closed and the contempt notice stands discharged. The reasoning provided is that the contemnors have complied with the order in question. The compliance affidavit filed by accused No.2, the Executive Engineer, BBMP, stated that the complainant's representation had been considered in light of the Writ Court's observations and was rejected via a reasoned endorsement dated 30.10.2026. The Court found this to be sufficient compliance with the original writ order, which directed employers to consider and dispose of representations. The Court explicitly stated that if the complainant has any grievance with the endorsement, they may pursue appropriate legal remedies. No specific issue was left undecided; the court found compliance and closed the contempt proceedings.

Facts

The complainant, Sri. Hardik Gowda, filed a Civil Contempt Petition (CCC) alleging willful disobedience of a judgment dated 08.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.2130/2022 and connected writ petitions. The original writ petitions were disposed of based on an order in W.P.No.9721/2019, which provided guidelines for calculating tax differences on works contracts executed pre- and post-GST. The guidelines involved assessing pre-GST works under KVAT, calculating balance works post-GST, deriving material rates, deducting KVAT, adding GST, setting off input credit, and determining any tax difference. The employer was directed to sign a supplementary agreement for revised GST-inclusive work value and pay any differential tax. The petitioners were to submit representations, and employers were to dispose of them within eight weeks. The contempt petition was filed after the Executive Engineer, BBMP, issued a reasoned endorsement dated 30.10.2026, rejecting the complainant's representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.2130/2022 and connected writ petitions, thereby constituting contempt of court under Sections 11 and 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the respondents, by issuing a reasoned endorsement dated 30.10.2026 rejecting their representation, have shown willful disrespect and disobedience to the directions issued by the Writ Court. The petitioner likely argued that the rejection was contrary to the spirit and letter of the court's order, which mandated consideration and disposal of representations in light of the provided guidelines. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, through their compliance affidavit, asserted that they had considered the complainant's representation in light of the observations made by the Writ Court and issued a reasoned endorsement. The respondents likely argued that their actions constituted compliance with the court's order, as they had considered the representation and provided a decision, even if it was a rejection. They would have argued that the court's order did not mandate a favorable outcome for the petitioner, but rather a proper consideration and disposal.