IN THE RICH CC)URT OP KARNATAK:\ CIRCUIT BENCH AT DRARWAD DATED THIS THE 10’ DAY OP DECEMBER. 201 1 THE HONT3LE MR JUSTICE ELMANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE EGO VINDARAJULL WA NO6382JQi1 BETWEEN: GEETA D/ 0. IRAPPA !‘IAULAGI, AGE: 3$ YRS. 0CC: TAHASILDAR, R/O. RAMADURGA.TQ: RAMDURGA. DIST: BELGAUM. APPELLANT(S) (By Sri. R E HATTI R N H HAUl, ADVS,) AND I CHANDRASHEEHAR Sr 0. SIDDAPPA ANUADI. AGE 53 YRS DCC AGRIL A BUSINEsS R 0 IkHANYI<Nk0PP\ TQ: RAMADU RCA, DIST: BELUAU M. 2. CII1NNAPPA. S;0. BASAPPA MUDENOUR, AGE: 52. YRS, 0CC: AGR1L. R/ 0. LITTUR, TQ: RAMADURGA DIST: BELGAUM RESP )NDENTIS TN IS WRIT APPEAL PILED U 3.4 (34 TN P. NAR.NATAI1A HIGH N‘CURT AC.T, PRAYING 34 ), SET ASIDE E ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SI NC 12 I N 2 .1 WRIT PETITIoN NO.66340/2011 (GM-PDS) DTED:13/10/2011 IN SO FOR AS PARAGRAPH SAND 6 OF THE JUDGMENT, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13/10/2011 in WP No.66340/2011 has filed this appeal. 2. His grievance is that the learned Single Judge has directed the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka to enter in the service records of the appellants about her conduct, which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge. Requesting this Court to remove such directions, the present appeal is field. 3. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, we do not see any merit in this appeal for the following reasons:- On earlier occasion in WP No.60471/2009? this Court by its order dated 17/2/2009, had quashed the order passed by the appellant herein, holding that he has not been invested with a power under the (Public Distribution V 3 Scheme) Control Order, 1992. Inspite of issuing a such direction the Tahashildar has passed a similar order in violation of the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the conduct of the Tahashildar in passsing similar orders, inspite of the direction of the court is purse contempt. Further, the learned Single iudge taking lenient view without initiating the contempt proceedings, has directed the Chief Secretary to note t.he conduct of the appellant in her service records. In the circumstances, these appeals are dismissed. Sd! 3UDGE Sd! JUDGE j Vrnb