IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4” DAY OP NOVEMBER 201 1 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA CCC NO2428 OF 201 1 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: SRI.SIDDESHWAR EDUCATION SOCIETY MORAB, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELGAUM REP BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.SHAMALA SHEKHAR BANE .. COMPLAINANT (BY SRI.VEERESH R.BUDIHAL AND SRI.GANGADIIAR HOSAKERI, ADVS.) AND: 1. SRI.GURAPPA MALLAPPA PATIL AGE: NOT KNOWN TO COMPLAINANTS THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES & REGISTRATION OP SOCIETIES BELGAUM DISTRICT BELGAUM 2. SANJEEVKUMAR S.BANE AGE: 40 YEARS DCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HOUSE NO.1, MORAB RQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM 3. PRAVEEN KUMAR A.BANE AGE: NOT KNOWN To COMPLAINANT 0CC: AGRICULTURE R’O HOUSE NO.1. MORAB TQ: RAIBAG. DIST: BELGAUM 4. SRI.SHIDDESHWAR EDUCATION SOCIETY MORAB. REP BY ITS SECRETARY AJ1T LAKKAPPA HEGDE AGES 41 YEARS 0CC: AGRICULTURE RO MORAB, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELGAUM 5. RAVI A.NADAGOUDA AGE: 31 YEARS 0CC: AGRICULTURE RIO MORAB, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELGAUM 6. SMT.GAYATRI S.BANE AGE: MAJOR 0CC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O HOUSE NO.1, MORAB TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM 7. SADASHIVA SHIDDA HALANI AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: DIRECTOR RIO HOUSE NO.1, MORAB TQ: RAIBAG. DIST: BELGAUM 8. SATYAPPA MALLAPPA CHANDARGI AGE: 62 YEARS 0CC: AGRICULTURE Rio AT POST: GUDAS TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM 9. RAVINDRA 5/0 BAISAB SHELKE AGE: MAJOR. 0CC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/t) HOUSE NO.1, MORAB TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM ... ACCUSED This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 1950 praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused / contemnors for willful disobedience of order dated 28.7.20 10 passed in WP No.64957/20 10 vide Ann-E. This CCC coming on for preliminary hearing this day. SUBHASH B ADI J., made the following: ORDER Petitioner has filed this contempt of court case against the respondents on the ground that this Court, in WP No.64957/2010 dated 28.7.2010 had quashed Annexure-J produced in the said writ petition and it also directed to both the parties to have their disputes resolved in an appropriate constituted suit. Further. liberty was given to the petitioner as well as the respondents to make necessary applications to appoint independent person to properly administer the Institution, pending disposal of the suit. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Annexure-J was the list of membership of the respondents. Even after disposal of the writ petition quashing Annexure 4 J. respondents presented an application stating that still the continued to be member. 3. It is not in dispute that as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. writ appeals were filed in WA Nos.6333/2010 and connected matters. The said writ appeals were disposed of inter-alia observing that it is open for the parties to work out their grievance with regard to the genuineness of membership in accordance with law before the competent authority under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. Further, direction was issued to the 6th respondent — Registrar of Societies to take necessary steps to appoint an Administrator to the 1st respondent — Institution therein in accordance with law. It is also not in disjaite that against the appointment of an Administrator. a writ petition was also filed in WP No.65969/2011 and the said writ petition had been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Neither in the order of the learned Single Judge or in the order of the Division Bench, there is any direction issued to respondents. but the parties were directed to have their disputes resolved in an appropriate constituted suit and further, this Court has observed that, if there is any dispute. it was open for the parties to work out their grievance. Whether AnnexureJ contains only the names of the respondents or not, is not a matter to he gone into in a contempt petition. Accordingv, petition fails and is dismissed. Sd! JUDGE JUDGE