Karnataka HC Drops Contempt Case After Waqf CEO Rejects Ex-Muthawalli’s Plea To Continue, Apologises For Delay

In brief

The question

Whether the respondents had complied with the direction in the writ order to consider the complainant’s representations

The court held

The Court held that the writ order had been complied with, took the compliance affidavit on record, and dropped the contempt proceedings.

It also directed

The notice was discharged

01Facts

The complainant filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the order dated 28 April 2026 in W.P. No. 201761 of 2026, which directed consideration of his representations concerning his appointment as Muthawalli within three months

p. 3

The Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf filed an affidavit stating that the representations had been considered and rejected by endorsement dated 30 October 2026, and tendered an unconditional apology for the delay

pp. 4–6

The complainant’s appointment had expired, a caretaker had been appointed, and the caretaker’s appointment was under challenge before the Wakf Tribunal

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the respondents had complied with the direction in the writ order to consider the complainant’s representations

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether further contempt proceedings were warranted in light of the reported compliance and apology for delay

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, concerning the High Court’s jurisdiction to address contempt and impose punishment

p. 2

The Court’s order does not set out a separate test or cite precedents; it resolves the petition on the basis that the direction had been complied with and the delay had been met with an unconditional apology

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 11 Section 12

Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 Section 83

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the CEO’s affidavit and the accompanying endorsement as establishing that the complainant’s representations had been considered and rejected, thereby fulfilling the direction in the writ order

pp. 5–6

It also noted the apology for delayed compliance. On those circumstances, the Court found no further matter requiring determination in the contempt petition

pp. 6–7