Judgment :- 1. This is a strange case of a litigant approaching this Court invoking contempt jurisdiction for taking action against the respondent-accused person on the premise that the respondents have dis-obeyed and dis-regarded the court orders, ultimately turning out to be not only an hollow claim but also boomeranging on the complainant exposing the complainant himself to such action in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction by this court. 2. When developments took this strange turn in this contempt petition, the complainant has conveniently come up with a memo which reads as under: MEMO The Complainant submits that, in view of the order of temporary injunction passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (SD), Bidar in OS No.166/2006 in favour of the Complainant and against the Respondents herein, the Complainant does not press the above Contempt Petition. A copy of the Certified copy of the order on IA No.1 in OS No.166/2006 is produced herewith. In view of the above, the above Contempt Petition is closed as not pressed. GULBARGA 07-12-2009 Sd/- Advocate for the Complainant 3. What is revealed in the memo is that in the light of an order of Temporary injunction passed by the court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bidar in OS No.166/2006 passed on 6.1.2007, a copy off which is also placed on record along with the memo, the complainant is now not inclined to press the contempt petition and on the other hand, seeks contempt petition be closed as not pressed. 4. Perhaps in the normal course and if we had not noticed the innumerable faux pas follies and a possible mis-representation and suppression of facts, this memo would have been accepted at its face value and the contempt petition closed as not pressed. But we are not inclined to do so for more than one reason. 5. Firstly, the contempt jurisdiction is very sacred, important jurisdiction conferred on the courts not only by a statute namely The contempt of courts Act, but also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to ensure the dignity, majesty and the decorum of the court proceedings and court orders are maintained and ultimately to ensure that the rule of law prevails in our system, as, until and unless the court orders and directions are obeyed and implemented, it would become a mockery of the judicial system in the country. It is for ensuring such avowed objects, contempt jurisdiction is conferred on the court particularly the Superior courts in this country. “See-Bijay Kumar Mohanty Vs. Jadu [ (2003) 1 S.C.C. 644 :2003 Cr.L.J. 841], Supreme Court (at p.646 of S.C.C. and p.843 of Cr.L.J.), wherein the Supreme Court has observed that: “… The rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to the society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute…” 6. We have found not only in this case, but also in many other cases, in the form of contempt proceedings before this Court particularly while we are functioning as judges at the Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, that the contempt jurisdiction is virtually mis-used by litigants for coercing public officers and officials exercising public authority to do even the acts which are otherwise not within their domain, otherwise not justified either on facts or in law and at times, being coerced to act even beyond their jurisdiction. See-Ashok Paper Kamgar Union Vs. Dharam Godha, [A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 105 at p.114], wherein the Supreme Court observed that: “…. In order to constitute contempt, the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case….” 7. Such developments do not augur well from the institutional point of view and does not necessarily bring credit to the judicial system in the country. Contempt jurisdiction is a very sacred jurisdiction and the right of any litigant cannot be enforced before the court just because a litigant feels that certain order passed in his favour is not obeyed or given effect to. Contempt jurisdiction is a very sacred jurisdiction and the right of any litigant cannot be enforced before the court just because a litigant feels that certain order passed in his favour is not obeyed or given effect to. The complainant is merely a relater who brings to the notice of this court, disobedience, dis-regard and a possible contumacious conduct on the part of a person who is required to obey, implement and ensure compliance with court orders, is disregarding the same to the detriment of the litigant in whose favour orders have been passed. 8. Developments leading to the situation which led us to doubt the bonafides of the complainant in not only filing the writ petition in the first instance questioning the acts of Municipality in deleting his name in its registers in respect of a municipal property said to have been auctioned way back in the year 1952-53, and getting an order therein but also trying to improve upon before the Division Bench in appeal and finally filing the present contempt petition. Thereafter, the further development in this Contempt Petition on the subsequent dates are as under: DVSKJ & KNKJ: 20.11.2009 CCC:1355/2009 “ORDER Complainant is the legal heir of an auction purchaser of a site auctioned by the Town Municipal Council, Bidar Town in the year 1952. 2.) Complainant’s version is that the complainant’s father one Ramachandra Rao Patil had been the highest bidder in an auction sale conducted by the then Bidar Town Municipal Council during 1952-1953 of a plot measuring 75 feet by 150 square feet (now bearing No.1/CMC 9-1-1 located at New Housing Colony, K.E.B. Bidar) by offering the highest bid amount of Rs.1,300/-and that the sale was confirmed in his favour on deposit of a part of the amount. 3.) Further, version is that the entire sale price has been paid by the auction purchaser thereafter, and even an amount of Rs.1,250/-had been paid towards development charges on 20.10.1975 and subsequently even property tax is being paid. 4.) It is also the version of the complainant that notwithstanding the payment of the amount, the Town Municipality never executed a sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser and several representations were given to the Municipality for executing the sale deed. 4.) It is also the version of the complainant that notwithstanding the payment of the amount, the Town Municipality never executed a sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser and several representations were given to the Municipality for executing the sale deed. It is the further version of the complainant that not much progress was achieved in this regard and that the Municipality though has never executed any sale deed in favour of the father of the complainant in respect of the site sold in the auction, name of the auction purchaser had been entered in the Assessment Register of the Municipality even from the year 1953-54 onwards and the assessment remind in the name of Sri. Ramachandra Rao till his death in or around 1975. 5.) Thereafter, even according to the complainant there was some dispute between himself and his elder-brother, one Kalidas Rao, an advocate by profession. 6.) Dispute, it appears, was in the context of the Assessment Register being made in the name of the complainant as a legal heir of the deceased Ramachandra Rao Patil or the said Kalidasa Rao and it is further version of the complainant, this dispute got resolved in terms of the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner on 03.07.1993, which had been made as Annexure-H to Writ Petition No.5452/07 from which originates the present contempt proceedings. 7.) It is also the version of the complainant that Ramachandra Rao’s effort as an auction purchaser to get the sale deed executed by the Municipality in his favour were not positively responded by the Municipality, notwithstanding the said Ramachandra Rao having made such efforts from 1965 onwards. 8.) It is the admitted position that even till today the Municipality has not executed any sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser or to his legal heirs and therefore, the title in the property remained as earlier and at any rate had not passed either to the then auction purchaser or to his legal heir, i.e. the present complainant. 9.) Even in this state of affairs, it appears the complainant had applied to the Municipality after having paid the development charges, for permission to put up a residential building in the site and met with success as per the order dated 30.12.2000 sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner, Bidar copy of which is produced as Annexure-D, to the writ petition No.5452/07. Nevertheless, the complainant could not start construction in the site in question and admittedly for the reason that certain civil suits were pending between himself and his brothers including Kalidas Rao, who had staked his claim for the property itself contending that the property belonged exclusively to himself and that the property had not even been auctioned by the Municipality as had been claimed by him in his objections that he had filed before the Municipal Commissioner in the year 1993, When the Commissioner held an inquiry in the wake of rival claims of complainant and the said Kalidasa Rao and who had filed his objections in the following terms: Sri. Kalidas Rao Deshpande, Advocate Bidar has submitted an application stating as under: 1. That the auction of the plot conducted by the C.M.C. is illegal. 2. The plot No.1 (9-1-1) was never the property of the C.M.C. 3. The auction never confirmed by the Government. 4. The deceased Sri. Ramachander Rao never deposited the money. 5. The auction sale certificate was never issued in favour of Sri. Ramachandra Rao pertaining to Plot No.71 and it was not handedover. 6. He has not constructed house over it as per the terms and conditions or the auction. 7.) That the auction of the Plot No.1 cannot be taken in favour of Sri. Ramachander Rao as Sri. Ramachander Rao failed to deposit the auction money. 8.) Late Sri. Ramachander Rao died about 18 years back never tried to get sale certificate for the plot No.1 and never in possession of the plot in question. Hence the alleged auction cannot be legal in the eye of law. Ramachander Rao as Sri. Ramachander Rao failed to deposit the auction money. 8.) Late Sri. Ramachander Rao died about 18 years back never tried to get sale certificate for the plot No.1 and never in possession of the plot in question. Hence the alleged auction cannot be legal in the eye of law. and the licence granted by the Municipality to construct a residential building on the plot, remained only on the paper and was not made use of and the Commissioner having opined as per his Order dated 03.07.1993 that retaining only the name of the Ramachander Rao in the Assessment Register was correct till the dispute between the parties regarding succession to the property of late Ramachander Rao Patil was resolved separately and that the complainant could be the custodian of the plot in question as he was looking after the properties of late Ramachander Rao Patil after his demise and in the wake of such observation by the Commissioner in his order of the year 1993 had not put up any construction till 2005, notwithstanding sanction in the year 2000 the Municipality got alerted to issue notice under Section 187 & 188 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 on 2/9/2005 to indicate that the complainant or his deceased father had not paid the full auction amount and for this reason the sale deed has not been executed by the Municipality and that the complainant and his father had nevertheless managed to get their name entered in the Assessment Register which was nothing short of playing fraud on the Municipality and therefore, perhaps deemed it proper to delete the name of the Ramachander Rao from the Assessment Register, as indicated in a Notice dated 02.09.2005 issued under Sections 187 & 188 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 calling upon the 1st respondent to place before the Municipal Commissioner, in relevant documents, showing the title of the writ petitioner to the plot in question and further threatened that unless the complainant produces the sale deed executed in his favour by the Municipality within three days failing which it will be deemed consider the plot as Municipal property and consequently, not only permission granted to the complainant as per the order dated 30.12.2000, will be cancelled but also khata as it stood by them (copy produced as annexure “F” to the writ petition). 10.) The complainant responded by filing his objections on 09.09.2005 which only elicited evasive response dated 27.09.2005 from the Municipality indicating that the file No.BMC.MISC.56/93-94 was not traceable and that it was missing and in the wake of such state of affairs passed the order dated 24.02.2006 to delete the name of Ramachander Rao as in the assessment records (copy marked as Annexure ‘L’ to the writ petition). 11.) A review petition to the Deputy Commissioner at the instance of the complainant having been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner as per his order dated 26.02.2007, that paved way for filing of the writ petition No.5452/07 before this Court seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26-02-07 passed by the 1st respondent produced at Annexure-A, as the same is illegal and without authority of law. b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24-02-06 passed by the 2nd respondent, as the same is illegal and without authority of law. c) Issue any other appropriate writ/s, orders or direction/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in the interests of justice. 12.) This writ petition which was not even contested by the Municipality but only the Government Pleader having appeared for 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner also taking notice for the 2nd respondent Municipality, was disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage in terms of the order dated 06.03.2008 with a direction to the Municipality to rebuild the missing file by using contemporaneous records in terms of the order passed in the writ petition and paras 11 & 12 of this order reads as under: 11.) That the relevant file is missing from the records section of the 2nd respondent is not a ground to deprive the petitioner of his claim, if it is otherwise tenable. The 2nd respondent shall do every possible endeavour to retrieve the missing file. Despite its best endeavors, if it is not traced, the 2nd respondent shall also make honest efforts to rebuild file taking the contemporary records from the concerned sections and offices. On such tracing of the file or building a fresh file, it shall issue copies of such documents, which the petitioner requires. Needless to observe that it is also open to the petitioner to seek copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act, 2000. On such tracing of the file or building a fresh file, it shall issue copies of such documents, which the petitioner requires. Needless to observe that it is also open to the petitioner to seek copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act, 2000. 12.) In the result, this petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs.” 13.) Complainant obviously being not satisfied to the extent of relief that was given in the order passed in the writ petition appealed to the Division Bench by filing writ appeal No.689/08 and the Division Bench after perusing the order of the learned Single Judge passed Judgment allowing the appeal as under: “7.) In that view of the matter, the entry of the appellant’s name in the khata cannot be deleted. On that basis, cancellation of building licence is also bad in law. In that view, appeal is allowed. However, the second respondent is at liberty to initiate action if the construction are not in accordance with the building licence.” 14.) the complainant is now before this Court complaining that 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner and the 2nd respondent-Municipal Commissioner, who were parties to the Judgment in the writ appeal have committed contempt of the orders of this Court by disobeying and disregarding the directions contained in the Judgment dated 25.08.2008 passed in writ appeal No.689/08 and to punish the respondent/accused by sentencing them to six months imprisonment and for such purpose petitioned under Sections 11 & 12 of the contempt of Courts Act. 15.) It appears that the learned Government Pleader volunteered to take notice for the 1st respondent on 27.09.2009, though the record does not indicate that notice was even ordered by this Court to the 1st respondent and while on this day emergent notice was ordered in the contempt petition to the 2nd respondent and the complainant was simultaneously permitted hand summons to be taken on the 2nd respondent, the matter had come up before this Court for further orders on 20.10.2009 and at the request of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, it was adjourned by two weeks even as the office note indicated that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bidar was to the effect that the 2nd respondent City Municipal Commissioner had been duly served but had remained unrepresented. 16.) An application Misc.W.No.80766/09 for receiving additional documents is listed for orders before this Court. 17.) Sri. Sanjeev Kumar C Patil, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the additional documents have to be placed before this Court through this application which are representations dated 09.06.2008, 29.03.2009, 29.01.2009 and legal notice dated 05.05.2009 urging the Municipal Commissioner to enter the name of the complainant in the Assessment Register in the wake of the Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.689/2008. 18.) We have heard Sri. Sanjeev Kumar C Patil, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and we have been taken through the contempt petition pleadings and also the writ petition and writ appeal pleadings and the orders in the writ appeal copies of which are made available to us by Sri. Sanjeev Kumar C Patil, learned counsel for the complainant. 19.) Complainant is seeking for taking action against the respondent/accused in contempt jurisdiction and for sentencing them to six months imprisonment, which is to say the least, a very grave and serious action if, should be imposed on the respondent/accused. If that should happen the respondents apart from suffering the ignominy of jail sentence, perhaps both accused persons may loose their jobs also. 20.) Contempt jurisdiction is a very special and sacred jurisdiction conferred on the Courts, essentially to ensure that the sanctity of the Court proceedings are maintained and that the majesty and the dignity of justice is preserved and ultimately to ensure that the rule of law prevails and persons who are bound to carryout orders as per the directions of the Court, perform and adhere to the same and do not indulge in any evasive tactics or by such evasive tactics and conduct renders Court orders ineffective or useless and thereby make a mockery of the judicial proceedings. 21.) Contempt proceedings are serious proceedings and will be exercised only in a case where it is really warranted and not just because the power is available with the Courts or just because the complainant is able to come before the Court and project before the Court some technical infraction of a Court order complaining that an order or direction issued by the Court is not complied with of etc., 22.) The manner in which the present proceedings have gone on and reached the present stage of the complainant seeking for action against the respondent/accused in contempt jurisdiction, shocks our judicial conscious to say the least, as it is very obvious with the proceedings revealing that procedure has overtaken substance of the matter and the present case is a glaring example as to how the process of writ jurisdiction of this Court and now the contempt jurisdiction is sought to be misused and abused by suspect litigants without bonafides and even with possible fraudulent acts having been indulged by litigants without any commitment to rule of law and fair procedure. 23.) The entire controversy leading to the present contempt petition is only with regard to an entry in the Municipal records to depict the name of the complainant as a legal heir of a auction purchaser of a plot of land, said to have auctioned by the 2nd respondent way back in the year 1952-53 i.e., the khatha. It is an entry reflective of ownership and the titled of the person and based on which an entry is made in the Municipal records. 24.) The khatha in the Municipal records is only a record for the purpose of the Municipality looking up to the person from whom the assessment of the property can be realised i.e., the person from whom the Municipal taxes can be realised from year to year. 25.) The khatha can in no way confer any title on any person notwithstanding that the khatha stands in the name of any person for any length of time. in fact it is on the acquisition of ownership by a person in a manner known to law in his name, will figure in the khatha, based on the production of proof of acquiring title to the property, before the Municipal authorities. in fact it is on the acquisition of ownership by a person in a manner known to law in his name, will figure in the khatha, based on the production of proof of acquiring title to the property, before the Municipal authorities. The name of such person figures in the Municipal Assessment Register so that on and after the entry the Municipality can look up to the person for realising the Municipal tax from such person. 26.) In the present case even admittedly the complainant or his father who, claimed that the site bearing Municipal No.9-1-1, New Housing Colony, KEB, Bidar was put to auction sale and that the complainant’s father was an auction purchaser never acquired title to this property as even today it is the admitted version of the complainant that the Municipality has not executed a valid sale deed in favour of either the deceased father of the complainant or in favour of the complainant. In the wake of their undisputed position, there was never any occasion to enter the name of the father of the complainant, as the khathedar in the assessment records of the Municipality. 27.) It is also not in dispute that the Complainant has filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.166/2006 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Bidar praying for declaration of title in his favour and for permanent injunction and also that an application had been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for Temporary injunction. 28.) It is the submission of Sri Sanjeev Kumar C Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that such an order of Temporary Injunction, infact has been granted by the Civil Court. On 6.1.2007 as per Annexure ‘N’, a copy of which is produced to the writ petition and a perusal of this order does indicate that the submission is correct. On 6.1.2007 as per Annexure ‘N’, a copy of which is produced to the writ petition and a perusal of this order does indicate that the submission is correct. 29.) However, we have our own reservation about the manner in which this order is obtained by the plaintiff, who is the present Complainant, particularly against the very two respondents-accused persons figuring in the suit as defendants as we have noticed that the records so far placed before us while has never indicated that at any point of time, the Complainant’s father was put in actual possession of the property in question or that the Complainant’s father had infact acquired a right to get his name entered in the assessment record/Khatha, admitted position even today is that the Complainant or his father have not acquired title to the property in a manner known to law. 30.) We also find that from the order of the Commissioner passed in the year 1993, in the dispute between the Complainant and his brother for the very purpose of the Khatha etc., to the effect that the Khatha should be restored in the name of the father and can be changed to one of the legal heirs only after resolution of this dispute regarding succession, in a separate proceeding. 31.) Viewed from any angle, we find that the complaint of respondents-accused having deliberately disregarded any positive directions passed by this Court either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal is not forthcoming. 32.) In a hazy situation like this and infact even it could get murkier if the bonafides of the Complainant should be probed any further, we find that the orders obtained by the Complainant both in writ petition and in writ appeal were without any basis or foundation and it was only because this Court accepted the version of the Complainant at its face value, the orders having come into existence and we are not very enthused or feel confident to exercise on contempt jurisdiction for the purpose of punishing the respondent-accused. 33.) However, we would like to be fully convinced and satisfied about the same and as the second respondent has remained unrepresented, evenafter service of notice and therefore a warrant can be issued, even to the first respondent, no notice having been positively issued by this Court, but only HCGP having taken notice on his behalf. 33.) However, we would like to be fully convinced and satisfied about the same and as the second respondent has remained unrepresented, evenafter service of notice and therefore a warrant can be issued, even to the first respondent, no notice having been positively issued by this Court, but only HCGP having taken notice on his behalf. We direct, respondents No.1 and 2, who were otherwise also amenable to our jurisdiction being the public authorities, to be present before this Court with relevant records of this Case on 23.11.2009 by 2.30 p.m. 34.) In the meanwhile, they can acquaint themselves with the present factual position of the plot in question and place their version before this Court with regard to the factual position of the subject site. 35.) Furnish a copy of this order to the learned HCGP. However, learned Government Advocate to intimate the contents of this order to respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 today itself, so that there is no submission before this Court on Monday i.e., on 23.11.2009, about any lack of communication, about the orders passed today. 36.) Registry to ensure that copies of this order are served on both the respondents by tomorrow.” DVSKJ & KNKJ: 23.11.2009 C.C.1366/09 ORDER Pursuant to our directions as per the order dated 20.11.2009, Sri S.R. Garwar, present Municipal Commissioner, Bidar City Municipality, is present before the court, both the learned Addl. Government Advocate, Sri Kumman and Sri M.A. Samad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Municipal Commissioner request for a week’s time to place before court the correct factual position leading to the present developments and also to place the relevant records before the court. The 1st accused-Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, is not present before the court. 2.) Sri Kumman, Addl. Government Advocate submits that the regular Deputy Commissioner is yet to join duty in view of orders of transfer and as of now, there is an incharge Deputy Commissioner who is the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar Sub-Division, who is also not present before the Court. On the other hand, Sri Vijayakumar Uppin, Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies in the office of the Deputy Commissioner is present before the court on behalf of the incharge Deputy Commissioner. On the other hand, Sri Vijayakumar Uppin, Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies in the office of the Deputy Commissioner is present before the court on behalf of the incharge Deputy Commissioner. 3.) It is submitted by Sri Vijayakumar Uppin that he is the person responsible for coordinating the work of municipal administration in the entire district and he is present before the court in that capacity also. 4.) Accepting what all is stated by Sri Vijayakumar Uppin, he is still not a substitute for the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner and it is not only proper but also the duty of the concerned official of the Government to appear before the court in deference to the directions issued by this court. That is the least expected of a public administrator when this court is seized of the matter not only exercise of jurisdiction of Judicial review of administrative action, more so, serious proceedings like contempt proceedings are being examined. 5.) List this matter for further orders on 2.12.2009 as requested by Sri S.R. Garwar, 2nd accused-Municipal Commissioner, to place the factual position as it prevails on the spot and to place relevant records before the court. The 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, shall also be present before the court on that day. 6.) It is expected of Sri Vijayakumar Uppin who is present before the court to apprise the Deputy Commissioner of the developments in the court and brief him of the entire case with reference to the order of this court on 20.11.2009 and to ensure that the Deputy Commissioner, when he appears before this court is conversant with the entire background and will be in a position to respond to the queries of this court. 7.) List the matter on 02.12.2009. DVSKJ/KNKJ: 2-12-2009 C.C.C.No.1366/2009 Second respondent/Municipal Commissioner-accused is present before the Court with the original records. The original documents relating to auction sale etc. are said to be in Urdu language. We direct learned AGA to acquaint himself with the records and make a submission before this Court in the language, we can understand. Sri S.S. Kumman, learned AGA appearing for the respondents files an application under Rule 13 of High Court of Karnataka Contempt of Court Proceedings Rules 1981 read with Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for exemption of personal appearance of respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, today, before this Court. Sri S.S. Kumman, learned AGA appearing for the respondents files an application under Rule 13 of High Court of Karnataka Contempt of Court Proceedings Rules 1981 read with Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for exemption of personal appearance of respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, today, before this Court. While we accept the contents of the memorandum of facts and allow the application, we direct the matter to be listed again on 9.12.2009 for further orders at 2.30 p.m. On that day, respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner to be present before this Court. Sri Manikappa Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant submits that there is nothing further to be placed before this Court on behalf of the Complainant. List on 9.12.2009 at 2.30 p.m., as requested by Sri S.S. Kumman, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.” And that is how the matter has come up before us today. 9. Today, Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate has appeared for Mr. Manikappa Patil and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Patil, learned counsel for the complainant. 10. Sri Kumman, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District and Sri M.A. Samad Siddiqui has appeared for the second respondent, City Municipal Councilor, Bidar. Both first and 2nd respondents are also present. 11. In the wake of the earlier developments though the presence of the respondent-accused was not necessary at all, nevertheless, they are required to come not only for the reason they have been arrayed as accused persons in these proceedings, but also it is the duty of a Government official to appear before this court whenever called upon and more so when they are figuring as respondent-accused by name. 12. We appreciate the response and their appearance before the court, which even otherwise inevitable, and is in the proper spirit to obey the letter of the law. 13. Mr. Ashok Patil, learned counsel has submitted that the complainant has now realised that there is no need for pursuing the contempt proceedings and that the complainant would rather take his chances in the pending suit in OS No.166/2006 filed by him before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bidar and would not like to suffer any orders or observations in these proceedings which, according to learned counsel, may cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner in the pending suit before the Civil Court. 14. 14. The apprehension of the complainant and the submission of the counsel for the complainant could have been appreciated if there were bonafides and the apprehensions were genuine. However, we find that from the very beginning, right from the day when the writ petition was filed before this court, the complainant lacked bonafides. We say so for the reason that the complainant in spite of obtaining an order of Temporary Injunction at the hands of the Civil Court in the suit against the very respondent-accused nevertheless came to this Court for no rhyme or reason and sought for issue of a mandamus from this Court contending that his name figured in the katha in respect of the subject matter of the suit, and the same has been subsequently deleted etc., Though Mr. Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently tried to impress and convince us that the cause of action for filing writ petition was not only available but also a live one and on a different cause the complainant had instituted the civil suit, we are not at all impressed by this argument for the simple reason that katha which is only an entry in the books of the municipal authorities for the purpose of collection of tax in respect of the property and for identification of the person from whom such tax can be collected, from whom the municipality can look up for the revenue, is entered and maintained as a record, because the collection is a recurring revenue every year. 15. These aspects we have already dealt with in our earlier order. We do not want to elaborate the same again, but what is more important is this katha business is only as a sequel to the title in the property. In the wake of our direction to produce all the original records before this court, the second respondent-Municipal Commissioner has succeeded to unearth by digging into all old records and is able to bring the old records of the year 1951-52 which was either claimed to have been missing or was managed to appear so, but has now surfaced may be due to some genuine efforts or may be from the pressure that we have put on them but the fact of the matter is that, it has surfaced. 16. 16. On a detailed perusal of the records, we have found that the complainant or his father so called the auction purchaser in auction sale by the Municipality of the very property had not become the owner of the property to claim katha entries to be made in the municipal records in respect of the property in question, in his/their name as no title deed has ever been executed by the Municipality. The title to the property is still eluding the complainant and it never became the property of his father during his life time. 17. In such a state of affair, there was no occasion for the name of the father of the complainant or the complainant to figure in the records of the Municipality in respect of the property. But we have also noticed that as claimed by the complainant, the katha at some point of time stood in the name of his father and a later deletion of the name of the father had led to proceedings before the Municipal Commissioner in appeal etc., and that was sought to be made as the subject matter of the writ petition. 18. Viewed from any angle, we find there was absolutely no cause for filing the writ petition and we find that the writ jurisdiction of this court has only been misused and abused by the complainant more particularly so as after the complainant had already filed a suit for declaration of his title against the very respondent which only means that the complainant was not sure of his title and there was a cloud on his title, nevertheless, the complainant filed the writ petition resulting in the order. Further the appeal for modification of the order of the learned single judge and thereafter, the present contempt petition. We find the entire litigation before this Court, whether the initial filing of the writ petition, later writ appeal or the present contempt petition are all gross abuse of the process of this court and the complainant had managed to elicit orders, to which he was otherwise not entitled to in law by virtual misrepresentation and suppressio veri of facts. 19. It is for this reason, we are not inclined to just close the contempt petition by accepting the memo for withdrawal but on the other hand, we reject the memo. 19. It is for this reason, we are not inclined to just close the contempt petition by accepting the memo for withdrawal but on the other hand, we reject the memo. The respondent accused having been unnecessarily made to face contempt proceedings are required to be compensated for their expenses and inconveniences. We are told that the second respondent Mr. Garawar, Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bidar had to undertake three trips from Bidar to Gulbarga and also to place records before this Court, while the first respondent Mr. Harsh Gupta, who is present today before the court and Sri Uppin, incharge of the Deputy Director, Municipal Administration, in the District who had appeared on an earlier occasion have appeared once each before the Court by travelling from Bidar. We award cost in favour of these persons at the rate of Rs.2,000/-for each of their appearance before this Court. 20. Cost to be paid to the respondents within a fortnight’s time. We drop all further proceedings against the respondents in this contempt proceedings as totally unwarranted. 21. That would still not take us to the conclusion of this contempt petition as we find that the complainant has virtually abused the process of this court and the memo for withdrawal or for closing of the contempt proceedings having been filed before this Court only at a belated stage having realised the bluff of the complainant has been exposed and the records reveal there was no cause for the complainant either to file the writ petition or to file the present contempt petition. 22. Change of counsel at any stage of the proceedings will not change the litigant or the facts. Law also remains the same. The change of counsel cannot make any difference to the merits of a case and though the ability of different counsel to present the case before the court may vary from counsel to counsel, cases are decided on the merits of the case and not by the mere appearance of a counsel. 23. We deprecate the tendency on the part of litigants who keep changing their counsel with the mistaken impression that a different counsel can produce a different result. 24. 23. We deprecate the tendency on the part of litigants who keep changing their counsel with the mistaken impression that a different counsel can produce a different result. 24. We also express our displeasure on counsel accepting an engagement midstream in a case already heard in part by displacing an other counsel and coming up to lash at judges, without knowing the background and without showing the minimum courtesy of seeking leave of the court for appearing in a matter which is already heard in part. We are extremely sorry to notice that niceties of the profession and good conventions in the profession are all giving way to brashness and insensitive ways of carrying on the profession and the nobility of the profession is being lost and taking a back seat. We only hope sincerely that things will change for the better and the trend will be reversed and the nobility as well as the dignity of the legal profession as also the sanctity and decorum of the courts and judicial system, are maintained and held in high esteem. 25. However, we are inclined to issue Show Cause Notice to the complainant invoking the power vested in this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to call upon the complainant to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against him in contempt jurisdiction and why not he be punished for committing contempt of this court particularly for misusing and abusing the process of this Court. 26. Addl. Registrar of this Court is directed to prepare a Show Cause Notice and cause to be served on the complainant who is present before this Court today and the complainant is hereby directed to remain here to receive the show cause notice. Sri Ashok Patil has also assured us that the petitioner will remain before the Court till the show cause notice is prepared and served on him. The Show Cause Notice also to indicate that the next date of hearing to be after four weeks from today as the complainant requests four weeks time to place his version before this court for his reply/explanation to the notice. 27. The Show Cause Notice also to indicate that the next date of hearing to be after four weeks from today as the complainant requests four weeks time to place his version before this court for his reply/explanation to the notice. 27. While this contempt petition is closed, the Registry to assign a new number for the further proceedings to be continued as per the Show Cause Notice against the present complainant in this petition and to list that matter before the Court on 18.1.2010. 28. Cost to be deposited within two weeks from today before this Court and the respondents are permitted to draw the same through the Government Advocate and the Registry is directed to issue a cheque in the name of the respondents for the deposited amount. This Contempt Petition dismissed.