Contempt petition alleging disobedience of a writ order requiring the Collector and Panchayat Secretary to process a Masjid building permission application. The court found respondents had forwarded the application and passed orders rejecting it in compliance, so no contempt was made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1613 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue notice to the respondents and punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the order dated 21-09-2022 in W.P.No.30754 of 2022 passed by Hon’ble High Court.
Between:
The Rompicherla Madeena Development Masjid Committee, 7/757, Chinnamasjid Street, Rompicherla Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P. rep. by its President, Patan Basheer Husain Khan, S/o Yousuf Khan, 62 years ...Petitioner
AND
... Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
‘. 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 direct the respondents to comply with the order dated 21-92022 in W.P.No.30754 of 2022 forthwith, pending disposal of the Contempt Case before this Hon'ble Court
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA
The Court made the following:
‘A ^
[3329]
APHC010122382023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1613/2023
Between:
The Rompicherla Madeena Development Masjid Committee ...PETITIONER
AND
Sri Harinarayana I A S and Others
...CONTEMNOR(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.K1RAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI 2.GAJJALA VENKATA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER:
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedcounsel for the Respondents.
for wilful 2. This contempt case is filed against the Respondents disobedience of the orders dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30754 of 2022.
<br>
2
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P.No.30754 of 2022 directed the Respondents to complete the entire exercise i.e. granting building permission for construction of Masjid situated in Sy.No.982/4 of Rompicherla Village and Mandal, Chittoor District in accordance with law, within a period of four months. But, for one
reason or other, the Respondents proceeded without providing any opportunity of hearing and without issuing notice to the petitioner as directed by this Court, while considering the application of the petitioner passed an adverse order against the petitioner. Hence, the Respondents are disobeyed the orders of this Court by committing contemptous acts under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents filed counter affidavits stating that in compliance of the orders of this Court, Respondent No.2 forwarded the application of the petitioner for according approval for construction of Masjid building vide letter Roc.No.62/2022, dated 04.11.2022 to Respondent No.1 as per Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2022. Thereafter, while considering the application forwarded by Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.1 after having detailed enquiry through the Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal rejected the application of the petitioner vide proceedingsRoc.No.1878/2022 C2 (pts), dated 28.12.2022, wherein it is observed as extracted here under;
3
"...As per the discrete enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar. Rompicherla Mandal, it is clear that there are four Mosques already existing in the Rompicherla Village and the present proposed construction of Mosque is not required. The Villagers have opposed the construction of present proposed Mosque which is against the Islamic Customs and Traditions. Further, the Tahsildar, Rompicherla in his report has submitted that there is chance of arising of Law-and-Order situation in the Rompicherla Village, if permission is accorded for the construction of proposed Masjid.
Therefore, in view of the above, the proposals submitted by the Panchayat Secretary, Rompicherla Gram Panchayat for construction of Masjid at Sy. No. 982/4 at Rompicherla Village is hereby rejected considering the Law-and-Order situation in the Rompicherla Village and the Panchayat Secretary is hereby instructed to return back the building fee of Rs.79,490/-collected from the Madeena Development Masjid Committee, Rompicherla immediately and report compliance to this office withoutfail.
- Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitsthattheordersof this Court complied with letter and spirit as directed. The order of this Court does not contain for providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while considering the application for granting permission as contended by the petitioner and the same is invented by the petitioner for the purpose of this Contempt only. In the absence of any such observation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for not providing of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cannot be termed as disobedience or violation of orders ofthis court.
Si 4
“...In view of the foregoing discussion and contentions submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, this Court is the opinion that the 4th respondent shall collect the fee payable by the petitioner and after receipt of the same, forward the application along with building plan to the 2nd respondent herein for prior approval of the same, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of payment of fee. After receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months...”
5
^ .
and disobedience on part of the Respondents. Therefore, no contempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the Contempt Case is liable to be rejected and no further orders are required to be passed in the Contempt Case.
- Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shallbenoorderasto costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt
case shall stand closed
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY I^EGISTRAR
SE(5TfOfi OFFICER
MV sree
VI
HIGH COURT
DATED: 10/09/2024
\
ORDER
CC.No.1613 of 2023
iP
g /AOCTm I
Current aeciion .
^i*!S;:^SPATCH5S<^
CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P.No.30754 of 2022 directing consideration and disposal of the Masjid building permission application.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Rompicherla Madeena Development Masjid Committee
Sri Harinarayana, I.A.S., District Collector, Chittoor District
G. Nagaraju, Panchayath Secretary, Rompicherla Gram Panchayat
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
