Disposed

Smt. M.Suseelamma v. K.Harshavardhan

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2024CC/2858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition by SC community members alleging non-payment of atrocity compensation despite a writ direction. Respondents rejected claims as petitioners' names were not in the FIR or charge sheet. The court held no contempt was made out and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

None granted; contempt case closed with liberty to claim compensation if victim status is demonstrated.

Smt. M.Suseelamma Vs K.Harshavardhan — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RA

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2858 OF 2023

¶6

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for Contempt of Court for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 1808 of 2023 dated 06-02-2023.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. M.Suseelamma, W/o Ramudu, aged 44 years, Occ. cultivation,

¶9

Smt. M. Ademma, W/o Venkateswarlu, Aged 44 years, Occ. Cultivation

¶10

Smt. M. Subbamma, W/o Nagaseshulu, Aged 47 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶11

Smt. C. Malleswari, W/o Sugnanam, Aged 35 Years, Occ. Cultivaton,

¶12

Smt. K. Pakkiramma, W/o Ayyanna, Aged 52 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶13

Smt. Harijana Nagamma, W/o Venkataswamy, Aged 58 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶14

Smt. N. Sunkulamma, W/o Giddaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ. Cultivation, 8. Smt. Mala Rajamma, W/o Naganna, Aged 78 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶15

Smt. Mala Someswari, W/o Maddaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶16

¶17

Smt. Munipati Anjanamma, W/o Somanna, Aged 48 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶18

K. Srinivasulu, S/o Yellanna, Aged 57 years, Occ.^Cultivation,

¶19

Pasupula Ayyamma, W/o late Yellanna, Aged 71 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶20

N. Narasimhulu, S/o Chinna Naganna. Aged 40 years,^{Occ.Cultivation.}

¶21

Narra Sunkanna, S/o Naganna, Aged 42 years, Occ.^Cultivation,

¶22

Smt. Mala Maddamma, W/o Sunkanna, Aged 38 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶23

Smt. Madiga Danamma, W/o Chinna Danam, Aged 57 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶24

Smt. Mala Ramanamma, W/o Narasimhulu, Aged 52 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶25

Smt. Mala Jayalakshmamma, W/o Sudarshanam, Aged 47 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶26

N. Sudarshnam, S/o Pullaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶27

mt. K. Sunkanna, S/o Sanjanna, Aged 52 years, Occ.^Cultivation

¶28

Smt. N. Bhagyamma, W/o Venkateswarlu, Aged 47 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶29

Smt. C. Punyavathi, W/o C.Sankar, Aged 41 years,^{Occ.Cultivation}

¶30

N. Laxmi, W/o Narasimha, Aged 45 years, Occ. Cultivation

¶31

Smt. C. Venkatamma, W/o Naganna, Aged 71 years,^{Occ.Cultivation}

¶32

C. Sudhakar, S/o Chinna Seshanna, Aged 63 years,^{Occ.Cultivation}

¶33

Smt. Damagatia Kalavathi, W/o M. Naganna, Aged 57 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶34

Ayyanna, S/o Chinna Yellanna, Aged 44 years, Occ. Cultivation,

¶35

(All the petitioners are residents of Palakolanu village,^{OrvakalMandal,} Kurnool District.)

¶36

...Petitioners

¶37

K. Harshavardhan, The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

¶38

Dr. G. Srijana, The Collector and amp. District^Magistrate, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

¶39

Ch. Siva Prasad Reddy, The Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶40

...Respondents

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. D Krishna Murthy

¶42

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri T N M Ranga Rao

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

‘V.

¶45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH; AMARAVATI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶46

CONTEMPT CASE No.2858 of 2023

¶47

Between:

¶48

Smt. M. Suseelamma, W/o.Ramudu, Age 44 years, Occ; Cultivation Resident of Palakolanu Village, Orvakal Mandal, ...Petitioners Kurnool District & 26 others.

¶49

Versus

¶50

K. Harshavardhan, The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada & 2 others. ...Respondents

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner ; Sri D. Krishna Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.1 ; G.P for Social Welfare Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3 G.P for Revenue

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Dt; 02.08.2024

¶54

Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the^Petitioner, Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for^{respondents1to} 3.

¶55

The petitioners herein are members of a Schedule Caste Community. They had approached this Court, by way of^W.P.No.1808 of 2023, contending that though they were victims,^{inCrimeNo.99of}

¶56

¶57

RRR,J C.C.No.2858 of2023

¶58

2021 registered with Orvakal Police Station, in which a charge sheet had also been filed before the Special Judge-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the 3"'^ respondent was not paying compensation in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.95, Social Welfare (CV.POA) Department, dated 29.08.2016. The petitioners also contended that they had also given representations which had not been considered.

¶59

This Court, by an order, dated 06.02.2023, had directed the 4'^ respondent therein, arrayed as respondent No.3 herein, to process the representations of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order with a further direction to as respondents 1 and 2 herein, (respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition) to act in accordance with the recommendations of the 3^^^ respondent herein.

¶60

The petitioners have now filed the present contempt^case contending that no steps were taken by the respondents to make any payment to the petitioners despite the orders of this^Court.

¶61

Respondents 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavits. The 3 rd respondent, in his counter affidavit stated that the representations of the petitioners were considered, in the light of the orders of this Court and that the applications of the petitioners, for

¶62

¶63

RRR,J C.C.No.2858 of2023

¶64

payment of compensation, was rejected on the ground^thatthenames of the petitioners were not found either in the FIR or in the charge sheet and as such, the petitioners would not be entitled to payment of any compensation.

¶65

The 2^^ respondent, in her counter affidavit stated^thatno payment could be made to the petitioners as the 3^^^ respondent had recommended rejection of the applications of the petitioners^astheir names were not shown either in the First Information Report or in the Charge sheet. She also stated that 26 persons mentioned in the First Information report and the charge sheet were sanctioned monetary relief.

¶66

Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the First Information Report and the charge sheet mentioned the names of these 26 persons and also stated^{“others”.Fie} would submit that the petitioners fall in the category^{of“others”and} would therefore be entitled for compensation which has been wrongly denied in violation of the directions of this Court.

¶67

The provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2015 provided for payment of compensation^to victims of offences under this Act. Flowever, such payment can be

¶68

¶69

RRRJ C.C.No.2858 of2023

¶70

made only to persons who are specifically enumerated in the complaint and charge sheet. In the absence of their names being^included in the charge sheet, the petitioners cannot contend that the respondents 2 and 3 have violated the directions of this Court.

¶71

In the circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed. However, it is open to the petitioners to demonstrate that they were also victims in Crime No.99 of 2021, upon which it would always be open to them to claim compensation.

¶72

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand

¶73

closed.

¶74

SD/- M.S.V.NAVEEN CHANDRA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶75

SE OFFICER

¶76

To,

¶77

The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Andhra

¶78

1. Sri K.Harshavardhan, Pradesh, Vijayawada.

¶79

1. Dr. G. Srijana, The Collector and amp. District^{Magistrate,Kurnool} District, Kurnool.

¶80

Sri Ch. Siva Prasad Reddy, The Tahsildar, Orvakai^{Mandai,Kurnool} District.

¶81

One CC to Sri. D Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶82

One CC to Sri. T N M Ranga Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶83

Three CD Copies

¶84

Stu sree

¶85

HIGH COURT DATED:02/08/2024

ORDER

CC.No.2858 of 2023

5 2; AUG 20211 6o

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

Smt. M.Suseelamma v. K.Harshavardhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M.Suseelamma v. K.Harshavardhan

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

S Ravi Vs D Nirup Kumar

Jajala Muni Chandra Vs GaliChalapathy

S. Chan Basha, Vs Pujari Ramakrishna

Mangena Venkata Swamy Naidu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary

V.Suresh, Vs a.T.Megharaj

B.Venkatarathnam Vs Smt. P.Ramanamma