IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 7743 of 2025)

N. JAYARAM & ANR. ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS J. RAVI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, in CCC No. 547/2022. By the said order, the Division Bench found the contempt case to be a fit one for framing of charges against the respondents therein. Aggrieved thereby, the said respondents came before this Court.

By order dated 21.03.2025, this Court requested the High Court to keep the proceedings in the aforestated contempt case in abeyance till this matter was finally disposed of.

The contempt case before the High Court was filed alleging disobedience to the order dated 20.04.2021 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 33792/2018 (BDA). By the said order dated 20.04.2021, the learned Judge merely took note Signature Not Verified of Rule 13(2) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.03.11 ReasoSn:ites) Rules, 1984, and directed the authority concerned to consider the representations dated 11.06.2018 made by the petitioners in the said writ petition and take a decision as regards execution of lease-cum-sale agreements in their favour.

Thereafter, a review petition was filed in the context of the aforestated order, leading to passing of the order dated 21.09.2022 by the learned Judge. Perusal of the said order reflects that the authorities brought it to the notice of the learned Judge that the allotment of sites in favour of the writ petitioners was cancelled, vide Resolution dated 15.12.2018 and, therefore, the said factual aspect needed to be taken into consideration. Significantly, the cancellation order dated 15.12.2018 had been subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 33792/2018, but the learned Judge had left it intact and directed disposal of the petitioners’ representations vide the order dated 20.04.2021. Even upon being apprised of this aspect once again in the review petition, the learned Judge observed that as the direction to the authorities was only for consideration of the representations made by the writ petitioners, the authorities had to take a decision on the representations as to whether it was a fit case for executing lease-cum-sale agreements or not.

This order clearly indicates that discretion was left with the authorities to consider all aspects of the matter and take a decision. In effect, there was no positive mandate issued by the learned Judge, requiring the authorities to act in favour of the writ petitioners.

Pursuant to the aforestated orders passed by the learned Judge, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued order dated

04.06.2024, whereby the cancellation of the allotment on 15.12.2018 was taken note of and, in consequence, it was decided that the plea of the writ petitioners for execution of lease-cum-sale agreements could not be approved. It is this order which was alleged to be contumacious before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Perusal of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 does not indicate as to what weighed with the Division Bench to hold that a prima facie case was made out for framing of charges against the respondents therein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As noted supra, there was no positive mandate, whereby the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the BDA could have been held to be in violation thereof.

Given the aforesaid facts, we find that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the contempt case and initiating process therein.

The impugned order dated 06.03.2025 is, accordingly, set aside and, in consequence, CCC No. 547/2022 pending on the file of the High Court shall stand dismissed.

The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

........................J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

..................