M/s. INFANSO INDUSTRIES v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

M/s. INFANSO INDUSTRIES REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. FRANCIS JOY 5/0 JENUS JOY, AGE: 56 YEARS R/O 24. THUNTAPUR VILLAGE MANTRALAYA ROAD RAICHUR TALUK & DISTRICT ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRLN.RBHASKAR & SRI.RAGHAVENDRA B.H. ADVS.) AND:

#1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE & INDUSTRIAL DEPT. BY ThE PRL. SECRETARY AND EX-OFFICIO - CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE SRLV.P.BALIGAR, AGE: MAJOR VIKAS SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE -560001 2

#2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR SRLM.S.MUDAKAVI, AGE: MAJOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE ( DIC) RAICHUR-584 101

#3. THE DIRECTOR SRI,G.RAMACHANDRA, AGE: MAJOR DEPT. OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.11, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 4, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.VITHAL PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR APMC YARD, RAICHUR-584 101 ...ACCUSED (SRI.S.S.KUMMAN, GOVT. ADV. FOR Al & A2 SRI.MALLIJARJUNA C.BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR A3 & A4) This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act praying to take cognizance of the contempt committed by the accused and punish them in accordance with law for disobeying the order of this Court dated 26.2.10 passed in WP No.80682/10 vide Annexure-A. contemptuous This CCC coming on for Mr.N.K.PATIL, J. made the following: framing charges today, ORDER In the instant contempt petition, the complainant initiate contempt proceedings view of disobedience of the order dated 26.2.20 10 passed in WP No.80682/20 10 against the accused. 3

#2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for complainant, learned Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 & 4.

#3. During the course of the submissions, the learned Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed an affidavit dated 6.9.2010 of one Srl. Mailappa, worldng as Joint Director, District Industries Centre, Raichur, Raichur District stating that, the 2nd accused has filed application In WP Nos.80682/10 for extension of time of six months for compliance of the directions Issued In WP No.80682/10 on 26.2.2010. ThIs application ified by accused No.2 had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 6.9.20 10 and six months’ time Is extended for compliance of the order dated 26.2.20 10 of this Court as referred above. 4

#4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for accused Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that, the prayer sought for, In the Instant contempt petition does not survive for consideration. Therefore, this contempt Initiated by the complainant may be dropped.

#5. As against this, the learned counsel complainant submitted that, he was not aware about the time extended In pursuance of the miscellaneous writ ified by accused Nos. 1 and 2 seekIng extension of time for compliance of the order passed in WP No.80682/10, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the time was extended for a period of six months for compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as referred above.

#6. In the light of the facts of the case and In the light of the statement made In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in the affidavit dated 6.9.20 10 filed by the 2M accused, 5 instant contempt petition filed by the complainant stands dropped, reserving liberty to the complainant to redress his grievance before the appropriate legal forum, if so advised or need arises.

#7. Accordingly. the instant contempt proceedings initiated against the accused stands dropped. Ordered accordingly. Sd! TUDGE Sd/ JUDGE RV