A communicated decision on the representation satisfied the mandamus and defeated contempt.

In W.P. No. 36129/2024, the complainants alleged that 7 acres and 3 guntas of their land had been wrongly marked as forest land.

On 20 February 2025, the High Court directed the Director of Bandipur Tiger Reserve to consider their representation and communicate the decision.

The complainants subsequently initiated contempt proceedings, alleging disobedience of that order.

In response, the State filed a compliance affidavit explaining the delay and producing the Director’s decision dated 20 August 2026, which addressed the representation and concluded that the disputed land was forest land.

1. Whether the respondents disobeyed the High Court’s order dated 20 February 2025, warranting action for civil contempt.

2. Whether the Director’s decision dated 20 August 2026 complied with the direction to consider the representation and communicate the decision to the complainants.

The petition was brought under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The relevant contempt principle is that civil contempt concerns wilful disobedience of a court order; the order at issue required the Director of Bandipur Tiger Reserve to consider the complainants’ representation and communicate the resulting decision.

The Court did not set out a separate statutory analysis or rely on cited precedents in disposing of the petition.

The Court compared the direction in the writ petition with the Director’s decision dated 20 August 2026, which addressed the representation and was communicated to the complainants.

It therefore found that the direction had been complied with.

The Court did not determine the merits of the parties’ competing claims to the disputed land.

The Court consigned the contempt petition.