Dismissed

M/S. Durga Bhavani Suppliers v. Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthnam

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Apr 2023WA/704/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that writ appeals challenging an order dated 17.09.2022 are infructuous as the party had separately filed WPs against the same before the Single Judge. In the contempt case, dismissing the appeal due to lack of evidence of violation of interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Writ Appeals No. 704 and 709 of 2022 along with Contempt Case No. 5588 of 2022, pending for closure. No costs.

M/S. Durga Bhavani Suppliers Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

<br>

<br>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶5

sjI

¶6

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL ^6? -k

¶7

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO: 704, 709 OF 2022 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.5588 OF 2022

¶12

WRIT APPEAL NO: 704 OF 2022 :

¶13

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of writ appeal against the orders of the learned Hon'ble High Court in WP.No. 17040 of 2022 dated 06-07-2022. i

¶14

Between:

¶15

M/S. Durga Bhavani Suppliers, rep by its Proprietor, Smt. Tanna Parvath, W/o Tanna Hari Mahim,Aged about 39 years. Residing at flat No.2, Vennela Apartments, Opp. Radio Station, Punnamma Thota Vijayawada-10, Krishna District, AP. ...APPELLANT

¶16

AND

¶17

1. Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthnam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep by its Executive Officer.

¶18

2. The Commissioner, Department for Endowments, AP, Amaravathi, at f Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶19

3. The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Government of AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Gunturu District.

¶20

...APPELLANT

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the Judgement dated Q6.07.2022 in WP.No. 17040 of 2022.

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may -be pleased to stay, the operation of judgement dated 06.07.2022 in WP No. 17040 of 2022 by directing the respondent No.1 continue the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ Appeal in the interest of justice or else, the Appellant and their workers would suffer irreparable loss and damage of their life without bread.

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶28

****• Respondent No.1 : SRI. K MADHAVA REDDY, SC FOR**

¶29

ENDOWMENTS

¶30

WRIT APPEAL NO: 709 OF 2022 •

¶31

**15 of the Letters Patent to set-a-side the order dated 06.07.2022 passed in W.P. No.17038 of 2022.

¶32

Between : P'oprietor, Smt. Tanna Parvath, WIo Tanna Radin * 59 years, Residing at flat No.2, Vennela Apartments Opp Radio Station, Punnamma Thota Vijayawada-10, Krishna District, AP. ’

¶33

AMO ...appellant

¶34

. AND

¶35

1. Tu® o ® District, Rep by its ExecutiveDevasthnam.Officer Indrakeeladri. Vijayawada'

¶36

2. SSSSTxSSSSM

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

-ass

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

tho Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of judgement dated 06.07.2022 in WP No. 17038 of 2022 bv A® No.1 continue the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ Appeal in the interest of justice or else, the Appellant and their workers would suffer irreparable loss and damage of their life without bread.

¶43

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶45

Respondent No.1 : SRI. K MADHAVA REDDY. SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶46

¶47

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5588 OF 2022 :

¶48

Between: M/s.Durga Bhavani Suppliers, rep by its Proprietor, Smt. Tanna Parvath, W/o Tanna Hari Mahim, Aged about 39 years, Residing at flat No.2. Vennela Apartments, Opp. Radio Station, Punnamma Thota Vijayawada-10. Krishna District AP ...PETITIONER o and Smt. p.Brmaramba, Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthnam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT

¶49

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to summon the respondent for willful and deliberate disobedience action and committed an act of contempt for violating the orders dated 19.09.2022 proceedings passed by this Hon'ble Division Bench in WA.704 of 2022 and punish the contemnor(Respondent) under Article 21 of constitution of India, U/ s 10 and 12 of contempt of courts Act. i Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI. K MADHAVA REDDY, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶50

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶52

HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

¶54

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶55

WRIT APPEAL Nos.704. 709 of 2022

¶56

AND

¶57

CONTEMPT CASE No.5588 of 2027

¶58

(Through physical mode)

¶59

WRIT APPEAL Nos.704 & 709 of 2022

¶60

M/s.Durga Bhavani Suppliers, rep. by its Proprietor Smt.Tanna Parvath, W/o.Tanna Hari Mahim, Aged about 39 years. Residing at Flat No.2, Vennela Apartments, Opp.Radio Station, Punnamma Thota, Vijayawada-10, Krishna District, A.P.

¶61

Appellant

¶62

Versus

¶63

Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep.by its Executive Officer and 2 others.

¶64

....Respondents

¶65

Counsel for the appellant

¶66

Mr. Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao

¶67

Counsel for respondent No.l

¶68

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 &3

¶69

: Mr. K.Madhava Reddy, Standing Counsel for Endowments(AR)

¶70

: Government Pleader for Endowments

¶71

¶72

Ha&NJS.1 W.A.No.704of2022

¶73

& batch

¶74

CONTEMPT CASE No.5588 of 2022
M/s.Durga Bhavani Suppliers, rep. by its
Proprietor Smt.Tanna Parvath,
W/o.Tanna Hari Mahim, Aged about 39 years.
Residing at Flat No.2, Vennela Apartments,
Opp.Radio Station, Punnamma Thota,
Vijayawada-10, Krishna District, A.P. ..... Petitioner
Versus
Smt.D.Bramaramba, Executive Officer, I
Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam,
Indrakeeladri, Vijaywada, Krishna District.
....Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao
Counsel for respondent : Mr.K.Madhava Reddy,
Standing Counsel for
Endowments AR
***

¶75

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶76

Dt, 13.04.2023.

¶77

(Per.Ninala Jayasurya, J)

¶78

The above Writ Appeals arise out of a Common Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.l7038 of 2022 and 17040 of 2022 dated 06.07.2022.

¶79

¶80

Ha&NJSJ W.A.No.704 of2022 & batch

¶81

The appellant in the appeals is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. Pursuant to an advertisement calling for the Tender-cum-Public Auction through sealed tenders for license and maintenance to preserve devotees/pilgrims chappals on lease for a tenure of two years from 01.11.2021 to 31.10.2023 for each item @ Rs.2/- issued by the respondent(herein after referred to as 'Devasthanam'), the appellant/petitioner participated in the tender process and became the successful bidder. After deposit of the auction amount, the I Devasthanam permitted the appellant/petitioner to preserve chappals by collecting the said fees from the devotees/pilgrims, who visit the temple. Pursuant to another advertisement, calling for sealed tenders for preserving the luggage of the pilgrims/devotees in the cloak room on lease for a tenure of two years from 02.06.2022 to 01.06.2024 for each item @ Rs.5/-, the appellant/petitioner participated in the tender process and became the successful bidder. On deposit of auction amount, the appellant/petitioner was permitted to manage the cloak room of the Devasthanam for preserving the luggage by collecting Rs.5/- for each item.

¶82

On receipt of complaints that the appellant/petitioner is collecting more fees from the pilgrims/devotees for keeping their chappals and luggage etc., vide separate proceedings dated 19.06.2022, the licenses granted to the

¶83

Ha&NJS,J W.A.No.704 of2022 &Oatch

¶84

¶85

appellant/petitioner were cancelled and it was black listed for a period of five years. Challenging the said proceedings, the appellant/petitioner filed W.P.Nos.17038 and 17040 of 2022.

¶86

The learned Single Judge after considering the matter, disposed of the Writ Petitions by setting aside the operative portion of the proceedings dated 19.06.2022 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and further providing that the rest of the proceedings dated 19.06.2022 shall be treated as a show cause notice and the appellant/petitioner shall submit explanation, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The learned Judge further observed, that the competent authority should proceed with the enquiry against the appellant/petitioner by giving a reasonable opportunity to participate in the enquiry and basing upon the report of the said enquiry, final orders shall be passed in accordance with law. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the explanation, if any of the appellant/petitioner. In the light of the orders passed in W.P.No. 17038 of 2022, the learned Judge disposed of W.P.No.l7040 of 2022 by setting aside the operative portion of the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.Cl/124/2021 dated 19.06.2022 with the directions as passed in W.P.No.17038 of 2022.

¶87

¶88

Ha&NJS,J W.A.No.704 of2022 & batch

¶89

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the above appeals were preferred on 12.09.2022 with a delay of 38 days, which was condoned by an order dated 01.11.2022.

¶90

The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner inter alia contended that the learned Single Judge having come to a conclusion that there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice, went wrong in not allowing the writ petitions in toto as prayed for and setting aside the operative portion of the proceedings dated 19.06.2022 only and to treat the rest of the said proceedings as a show cause notice. The learned counsel further contended that there is no specific provision in the tender notification which empowers the Devasthanam to black list the appellant/petitioner for violation of the tender conditions, if any. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the said aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court. The learned counsel also submits that during pendency of the above appeals and in violation of the orders dated 19.09.2022, the 1* respondent passed orders with an antedate on 17.09.2022 purportedly in terms of the orders passed by i the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. He submits that the same are passed with a view to circumvent the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 19.09.2022, it amounts to Contempt of Court and therefore.

¶91

¶92

Ha&NJSJ W.A.No.704 of2022 & batch

¶93

C.C.No.5588 of 2022 is filed. He submits that the contemnor is guilty of flouting the orders dated 19.09.2022 and liable for punishment under Contempt of Court Act.

¶94

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents while refuting the said submissions made on behalf of the appellanl/peHBoner contends that the present writ appeals are rendered infructuous as the appellanVpetitioner, filed Writ Petition Nos. 109 and 125 of 2023 against the proceedings dated 17.09.2022 of the Devasthanam, issued pursuant' to the orders of the learned Single Judge, which are under challenge. He also submits that even otherwise also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and equitable, as the interest of the writ petitioner was protected and opportunity was afforded to participate in the enquiry by submitting the explanation, if any, to the proposed action.

¶95

The learned counsel also submits that the allegation that the order/proceedings dated 17.09.2022 was passed with an antedate in violation of the order/undertaking dated 19.09.2022 in the Writ Appeals is not tenable and , the relevant facts with regard to passing of the orders are stated in the counter-affidavit opposing condonation of delay in filing the Writ Appeals.

Ha&NJS,J W.A.No.704of2022 & batch

¶100

Making the said submissions, the learned Standing Counsel seeks dismissal of the Writ Appeals as well as the Contempt Case.

¶101

¶102

9. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that it is not in dispute that pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge impugned in the present Writ Appeals, the 1* respondent-Devasthanam passed orders on 17.09.2022 against which the appellant/petitioner filed W.P.Nos.l09 and 125 of 2023 and the same are pending consideration before a learned Single Judge. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners tried to impress upon this Court that the orders of the learned Single Judge under challenge are not sustainable, in view of the fact that questioning the orders of the 1®^ respondent dated 17.09.2022 already Writ Petitions were filed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner need not be examined. The Writ Appeals, in view of the subsequent developments have virtually become infructuous.

¶103

10., With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the p6titioner/appellant to the effect that the said orders/proceedings dated 17.09.2022 are antedated and passed in violation of the interim orders dated 19.09.2022, no reply affidavit is filed to the counter affidavit filed in the

¶104

¶105

Ha&NJS,J W.A.No.704of2022 & batch

¶106

\ J

¶107

Contempt Case controverting the statements made therein. In the absence of

¶108

same, no conclusion can be arrived at that there is violation of the orders passed by this Court or hold the contemnor liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act. Therefore, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner merits no acceptance and accordingly, the same are rejected.

¶109

For the aforegoing reasons, the Writ Appeals and Contempt Case are dismissed. However, Writ Petitions challenging the proceedings/orders dated 17.09.2022 shall be adjudicated on their own merits and without being influenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court and as no opinion is expressed about the validity of the same in the present appeals.

¶110

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶111

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶112

To,

¶113

One CC to SRI. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. K MADHAVA REDDY, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies

MSR gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/04/2023

COMMON ORDER

WA.No.704, 709 of 2022 AND

¶120