Single judge order in a contempt case alleging violation of a court order regarding club investigations. The petitioner stated no violation occurred after the order date. The judge found no ground for contempt and closed the case.
The contempt case was closed as the alleged violation (request to close the club) was denied.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.1728 OF 2011
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28635 of 2011 dated 15.11.2011 whereby this Court, while following its earlier orders in W.P.No.24533 of 2011 and batch dated 09.09.2011, directed the respondents not to interfere with any card game of Rummy (a 13 cards game) being played in the club, and observed that the respondents would not be precluded from entering the clubs or from taking action in terms of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’), and thereafter to initiate penal proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 for violation of the provisions of the Act.
In his affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case the petitioner would allege that, on 03.12.2011, the 4th respondent - Sri D.Muniswamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, had come over, and had asked them to close down the club. As the 4th respondent did not deal with this specific allegation in his counter affidavit, he was permitted to file an additional counter affidavit wherein the 4th respondent would deny having directed the petitioner to close down the club, and assert that the club is functioning.
Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the club is now functioning. As the order of this Court has not been violated, I see no reason to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
29.03.2012 KH
Petitioner
Sri D. Muniswamy
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
