http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  911 of 2008

PETITIONER: K.M. SHIVAKUMAR

RESPONDENT: H.V. VIJAYARAGHAVAN AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 911   OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.7565/2007] WITH CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 912   OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.7567/2007]

       Leave granted.         These appeals by special leave arise out of a contempt proceedings filed by H.V.  Vijayaraghavan, respondent No.1 herein, for alleged violation of the order of the High  Court dated 18.11.2005 which is in the following terms:

"Having regard to the nature of the  grievance made by the  petitioners in the petition, we are of the view that they should  prosecute their objections before the authorities concerned and the  proceedings should be allowed to continue.   We are not inclined to  interfere with the preliminary notification at this stage.  Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. We, however, give  liberty to  the petitioners to file further objections, if any, before the  competent authority within the next thee weeks and if such  objections are filed, the said authority shall consider the same along  with the objections already filed in accordance with law and proceed  in the matter thereafter. No costs."

       Allegedly, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, number of  representations and objections were filed by the said H.V. Vijayaraghavan and  another person for dropping the land acquisition proceedings. On the plea that the  said representations and objections had not been disposed of, a contempt petition was  filed. The High Court issued notice against respondent No.8 \026 K.M. Shivakumar in  the contempt petition, who is the  petitioner in SLP(C) No.7565/2007. The High Court,  however, opined that charges should be framed as against  K.M. Shivakumar.  It is  stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the contempt application, however, the  said purported representations and objections of H.V. Vijayaraghavan and others  were disposed of on 2.2.2007 by Special Land Acquisition Officer.    

       This Court stayed further proceedings in the contempt matter whereafter the State  purportedly decided to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings. In the said  contempt proceedings before the High Court, Nandi Infrastructure Corridor  Enterprises Ltd. ("the Company" for short) had filed an application for being  impleaded as a party.  As the said application was dismissed on 5.4.2007, a Special  Leave Petition was filed before this Court which was marked as SLP(C) No.  7567/2007. Both the SLPs i.e. SLP(C) Nos. 7565/2007 &  7567/2007, were taken up  together for preliminary hearing and this Court on 30.4.2007 passed the following  order:   "Issue notice. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned counsel accepts notice.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Two weeks’ time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Till further  order, further proceedings in the contempt matter shall remain  stayed."

       It, however, appears that H.V. Vijayaraghavan and another person in the  meantime, having regard to the order passed on their representations by the State of  Karnataka, sought to withdraw the contempt application wherefor an application was  filed before us. The said application was marked as I.A. No.6/2007.  In the said I.A., it  was directed:       "An application has been filed for withdrawal of the contempt  petition pending before the High Court. This Court has granted the stay of further proceedings. In view of  the fact that the contempt petition is pending before the High Court,  we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved  if the interim stay granted by this Court is vacated with liberty to  the applicant herein to file an appropriate application for  withdrawal of the contempt petition before the High Court. I.A. No.6 is disposed of accordingly."         However, when an application for withdrawal of the contempt petition was moved  before the High Court, it was of the opinion that this Court should clarify the two  orders passed by it and directed the applicant to seek clarification from this Court.  Pursuant to the said observation, this application for clarification has been filed.  

       Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents would submit that keeping in view the fact that the order dated  18.11.2005 stands complied, his client does not intend to proceed in the matter and  therefore this Court should clarify that the High Court would be at liberty to pass  appropriate order on the application for withdrawal of the contempt proceedings.   

       Mr. R.F. Nariman and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on  behalf of the Company, on the other hand, would submit that the authorities of the  State of Karnataka have been passing orders de-notifying the lands from the  acquisition proceedings taking shelter under the contempt proceedings, which in view  of the earlier judgments passed by this Court should be held to be impermissible.           It is not in dispute that the Company has filed a separate writ petition challenging   the de-notification of the lands before the High Court which is still pending.       

       Our attention in this connection has also been drawn to an order dated 27.2.2007  passed by this Court in C.A. No.1113/2007 wherein the Company has been held to be a  party in the contempt proceeding.  

       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we dispose of both these  appeals observing that it would be open to the High Court to dispose of the  application of H.V. Vijayaraghavan for withdrawal of the contempt petition, but  before doing so, the High Court would apply its mind as regards implication thereof  vis-a-vis other proceedings pending before it.  

       As an application for withdrawal of the contempt proceedings is pending  consideration before the High Court, we do not intend to make any other observation  thereon but we are of the opinion that disposal of these two applications would not  stand in the way of the Company to bring on record the records of High Court in  pending proceedings, all the additional facts which are purported to have arisen after  the filing of this contempt petition.  

       Any order passed by the State Government purportedly to have been passed acting  in terms of the order of the High Court shall be open to challenge by the Company or  any other person having  an interest in the matter.

       To the aforementioned effect, it will be open to the Company to bring the same to  the notice of the  High Court even in the contempt proceedings. We are sure that the  High Court shall take all the aspects of the matter into consideration before passing  appropriate order.          In the event the High Court does not permit H.V. Vijayaraghavan, respondent No.1  herein, to withdraw the contempt petition, it goes without saying that he would be at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

liberty to raise all contentions in the contempt proceedings. Liberty to mention is  granted in the event any occasion arises therefor.             For the views we have taken, it is not necessary to  keep these matters pending  before this Court. Both these appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned  directions and observations. No costs.