Disposed

S. Fathimabee, v. Sri P. Koteswar Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2022CC/1481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case addressed alleged willful disobedience regarding an order to stop unauthorized temple construction. The Court found the respondents acted promptly after complaints, leading to the stopping of work via police FIR, and therefore closed the contempt case without order on costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, are closed.

S. Fathimabee, Vs Sri P. Koteswar Rao — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE No.1481 of 2021 .

¶4

O R D E R:-

¶5

This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 12.07.2021 by the respondents herein.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kiran Vadlamudi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri P.Subash, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Respondents filed their counter affidavits. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counters filed by the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents did not take any action to implement the order of this Court to stop unauthorized construction being taken place in Sy.No.133 of Edurur Village/Gram Panchayat, Kurnool District.

¶9

In fact, in compliance of the direction of this Court dated 12.07.2021, the respondents ought to have consider and take appropriate action in accordance with law on the representations dated 20.01.2021 and 30.06.2021 submitted

¶10

¶11

by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from 12.07.2021.

¶12

The petitioner filed photographs along with the reply affidavit. On perusal of the photographs, it appears that they were taken on 30.07.2021, 05.08.2021, 10.10.2021 and 12.10.2021. On careful perusal of the same, it appears, there is some substance in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the construction work is going on in the subject land.

¶13

Under the circumstances, this Court constrained to issue notice in Form-I to the respondents. In compliance of the notice issued in Form-I dated 06.12.2021, the respondents present before this Court.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that immediately after receipt of the order of this Court dated 12.07.2021 the 2^nd respondent issued notice dated 26.07.2021 directing the Panchayat Secretary, Edurur Gram Panchayat to attend before him along with connected records on 31.07.2021. The 2^nd respondent issued memo dated 31.07.2021 after hearing the Panchayat Secretary and after verification of the records, it is found that Sri Boya Venkateswarlu is constructing temple in Sy.No.133 without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat and accordingly, the 2^nd respondent directed the Gram

¶15

¶16

Panchayat to stop the construction of temple immediately and directed to submit compliance report and also directed to issue notice to said Boya Venkateswarulu. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat Secretary issued notice dated 31.07.2021 directing the persons, who are making construction of temple to stop the same.

¶17

On 05.08.2021, the Panchayat Secretary submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Taluka police Station, Kurnool requesting to registered a case against the persons, who are proceeding with the construction in violation of the notice dated 31.07.2021.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, the Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station, Kurnool registered F.I.R against persons, who acted contrary to the notice dated 31.07.2021 issued by the Gram Panchayat and thereafter construction was stopped. At present no construction work is going on.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly agreed that at present construction work is stopped.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful examination of the submissions of the respective counsels, it appears that the respondents acted promptly to implement the orders of the Court by issuing

¶21

¶22

necessary instructions to their subordinates. Inspite of notice issued by the Gram Panchayat to stop construction, the persons, who are responsible for construction are proceeded with the construction and when the petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the respondents and made a complaint to the local police and F.I.R. was registered against those persons and consequent to that, all construction activities are stopped.

¶23

Under the circumstances, in our considered view, it is not necessary to continue this Contempt Case against the respondents as there is no contempt of Court on the part of the respondents.

¶24

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶25

______________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶26

Date : 03.01.2022 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow. B/o KLPD

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶29

CONTEMPT CASE No.1481 of 2021 .

¶30

Date :03.01.2022

¶31

KLPD

S. Fathimabee, v. Sri P. Koteswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Fathimabee, v. Sri P. Koteswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Thejeswar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Kumaraswamy Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Divi Narayana Rao Vs The State of Andra Pradesh

Mr. Naidu Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velivela Nagendram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velivela Nagendram, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh