Sk.Kulsonbibi Vs Smt.G.Ratnamani — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Sk.Kulsonbibi Vs Smt.G.Ratnamani — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None against the contemnor — the contempt case was closed without punishment, the Court having found no willful disobedience; the petitioner was left at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, with no costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the order dated 15.10.2019 in W.P.No.14914 of 2019 (directing disposal of the petitioner's F-Line application), such that the contemnors should be punished.

Court's answer

The authorities had already issued endorsement dated 11.10.2019 on the petitioner's F-Line application, i.e., before the writ petition itself was filed.

Ratio / Principle

The fact that the endorsement had been issued before the writ petition was filed was not at all brought to the notice of this Court at the time of disposal; had it been noticed, the Court would not have passed such an order.

Key takeaways

There is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioner, and the contempt case can be closed. (The judgment prints 'willful obedience', an evident misprint for 'willful disobedience'; quoted verbatim.)ratio¶29
If the petitioner has any grievance, she may approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no costs were awarded.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Sections 10 to 12) — willful disobedience — Contempt Case No.153/2022 alleging non-compliance with the order dated 15.10.2019 in W.P.No.14914 of 2019, whereby the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to dispose of F-line application No.TAFS011900622731 dated 01.08.2019, if otherwise entitled, in accordance with Board Standing Orders and following the procedure under Section 23 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1921, after notice to all concerned, preferably within eight weeks. Held: the counter showed that the authorities had already issued endorsement dated 11.10.2019 on the petitioner's F-Line application, i.e., before the writ petition itself was filed — a fact not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal, and had it been noticed, the Court would not have passed such an order. Finding no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents, the Court closed the contempt case, leaving the petitioner free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, with no costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also closed.

[3332]

APHC010028372022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 153/2022

Between:

Sk.kulsonbibi

...PETITIONER

AND

Smt G Ratnamani

...CONTEMNOR

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

Counsel for the Contemnor:

1.P SUBASH

The Court made the following order:

This Contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 15.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.14914 of 2019.

Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this Court has directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s F-Line application under its order dated 15.10.2019 in W.P.No.14914 of 2019, the authorities have not complied the same.

Therefore, there is willful disobedience on the part of respondents. As such, prayed to punish the contemnors.

Learned counsel for the contemnors on counter contended that, the authorities have already issued endorsement on the petitioner’s F-line application on 11.10.2019, which is way before filing of the writ petition itself. As such, there is no disobedience on the part of respondents as alleged by the petitioner and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties.

This court has disposed the writ petition W.P.No.14914 of 2019 with the following direction:

“…In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer is directed to dispose of F-line application No.TAFS011900622731 dated 01.08.2019, if she is otherwise entitled to, in accordance with Board Standing Orders and following the procedure contemplated under Section 23 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1921, strictly, in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to all the persons concerned, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.”

The respondents stand, now taken, that the authorities have already issued endorsement on the petitioner’s F-line application, before filing of writ petition was not at all brought to the notice of this Court at the time of disposal. Had it been noticed, this court would not have passed such an order. However, the counter would indicate that the authorities have already issued endorsement dated 11.10.2019 on the petitioner’s F-Line application i.e.,

before filing of the writ petition itself. In view of the same, this Court finds

there is no willful obedience on the part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioner and the contempt case can be closed.

Accordingly, the Contempt case is closed . If at all the petitioner has any grievance, she can approach appropriate forum, in accordance with law. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

BRS