Case: K.M. Shivakumar Vs. H.V. Vijayaraghavan &amp; Another

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 AcquisitionCourt stayed further proceedings in the contempt matter where after 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. 7565/20077567/2007, were taken up together for preliminary hearing and this Court on 30.4.2007 passed the followingnotice.Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned counsel accepts notice.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 wasapplication 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 sub served 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.

Reasoning: 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.