High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Contempt Petition and Allows Writ Appeals in Tender Cancellation Dispute. Court holds that cancellation of tender due to change in government policy does not amount to willful disobedience of court order under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 21:46:54

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute over a tender issued by the State of Karnataka for the selection of a creative agency for the 'Invest Karnataka 2022' event. M/s. BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt. Ltd. (the complainant) had participated in the tender process. After the tender was cancelled by the government, the complainant filed a writ petition (W.P. No.21308/2022) seeking consideration of its representation. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.01.2023, directed the authorities to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the complainant filed a contempt petition (C.C.C. No.495/2023) alleging that the accused (government officials) willfully disobeyed the order by cancelling the tender instead of considering the representation. The accused contended that the cancellation was due to a change in government policy, as the event 'Invest Karnataka 2022' was postponed and later cancelled. The court examined whether the cancellation amounted to willful disobedience. It held that the cancellation was a bona fide act based on policy change and not a willful act of contempt. The contempt petition was dismissed. Meanwhile, the government authorities filed writ appeals (W.A. Nos.1095/2023 and 1266/2023) challenging the order dated 25.01.2023. The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the order, as the tender had been cancelled and the direction to consider the representation had become infructuous. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings are not meant to enforce compliance with orders that have become impossible due to supervening events.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The complainant alleged that the accused willfully disobeyed the judgment dated 25.01.2023 in W.P. No.21308/2022 by cancelling the tender instead of considering the representation. The court held that the cancellation was due to a change in government policy and not a willful act of disobedience. The contempt petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)

B) Tender Law - Cancellation of Tender - Government Policy - The writ appeals challenged the order dated 25.01.2023 in W.P. No.21308/2022 which had directed consideration of the petitioner's representation. The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the order, as the tender had been cancelled due to a change in policy, rendering the direction infructuous. (Paras 1-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the cancellation of a tender by the State government due to a change in policy amounts to willful disobedience of a court order directing consideration of the petitioner's representation.

Final Decision

The contempt petition (C.C.C. No.495/2023) is dismissed. The writ appeals (W.A. Nos.1095/2023 and 1266/2023) are allowed, setting aside the order dated 25.01.2023 in W.P. No.21308/2022.

Law Points

Contempt of Court
Willful Disobedience
Tender Cancellation
Government Policy
Change in Policy
Section 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act
1971
Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act
1961

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 11

C.C.C No.495 of 2023 (Civil) c/w Writ Appeal No.1095 of 2023 (GM-RES) and Writ Appeal No.1266 of 2023 (GM-RES)

2024-06-14

N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit, J.

Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate a/w Sri S. Swaroop, Advocate for complainant; Sri Ruben Jacob, Additional Advocate General a/w Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA for accused; Sri H. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for appellants

Invest Karnataka Forum and Karnataka State Marketing Communication and Advertising Ltd.

M/s. BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt. Ltd. and State of Karnataka

Nature of Litigation

Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of court order and writ appeals challenging the order directing consideration of representation.

Remedy Sought

In CCC: To hold accused guilty of contempt and punish with imprisonment. In WA: To set aside the order dated 25.01.2023 in W.P. No.21308/2022.

Filing Reason

The complainant alleged that the accused willfully disobeyed the court's order by cancelling the tender instead of considering the representation.

Previous Decisions

The learned Single Judge by order dated 25.01.2023 in W.P. No.21308/2022 directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

Issues

Whether the cancellation of the tender by the State government due to a change in policy amounts to willful disobedience of the court order dated 25.01.2023. Whether the order dated 25.01.2023 directing consideration of representation should be set aside as infructuous due to cancellation of tender.

Submissions/Arguments

Complainant argued that the accused deliberately cancelled the tender to avoid compliance with the court order, constituting willful contempt. Accused argued that the cancellation was due to a change in government policy as the event was postponed and later cancelled, and there was no willful disobedience.

Ratio Decidendi

Cancellation of a tender due to a change in government policy does not constitute willful disobedience of a court order directing consideration of a representation. Contempt proceedings are not meant to enforce compliance with orders that have become impossible due to supervening events.

Judgment Excerpts

The cancellation of the tender was due to a change in government policy and not a willful act of disobedience. The contempt petition is dismissed as the accused did not willfully disobey the court order.

Procedural History

The complainant filed W.P. No.21308/2022 seeking consideration of representation. The learned Single Judge on 25.01.2023 directed consideration. Subsequently, the complainant filed C.C.C. No.495/2023 alleging contempt. The accused filed W.A. Nos.1095/2023 and 1266/2023 challenging the order. All matters were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.