Disposed¶37

Mekala Dasu, v. D. Bala Swamy

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 10 and 12

Telangana HC4 Sept 2025CC/2365/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 10 and 12; willful and deliberate violation as precondition to contempt punishment; affidavit lacking specific plea of violation; no violation of order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No.20194 of 2024; writ sought declaration against dispossession from agricultural land Acs.1.18 guntas Survey No.529 Ghatkesar Village and Mandal Medchal-Malkajgiri District without notice; Station House Officer Ghatkesar Police Station; Tahsildar Ghatkesar Mandal; contempt case closed with liberty to file fresh contempt case; no order as to costs; Justice K. Lakshman; Telangana High Court at Hyderabad; decision dated 04-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt case if so advised; no order as to costs. ¶37

Mekala Dasu, Vs D. Bala Swamy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt Case closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt case if so advised; no order as to costs.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed a willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 12-09-2024 in W.P. No.20194 of 2024 punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶9

Court's answer

In the entire affidavit, the petitioner did not specifically plead violation of the order dated 12.09.2024, including the alleged interference of respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the instance of respondent No.3.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

There is no violation of the aforesaid order (dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No.20194 of 2024) by the respondents.

¶33

Key takeaways

To punish the respondents-contemnors in terms of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there must be willful and deliberate violation of the order, and the alleged violation of the order by the respondents falls far short of it.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 10 and 12 — willful and deliberate violation is a precondition to punishing contemnors. Telangana High Court (K. Lakshman, J.), 04-09-2025, in Contempt Case No.2365 of 2025: the case alleged willful violation of the High Court's order dated 12-09-2024 in W.P. No.20194 of 2024, by which a writ concerning threatened dispossession of the petitioner's agricultural land admeasuring Acs.1.18 guntas in Survey No.529, Ghatkesar Village/Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, had been closed recording the State's submission that disputes existed and the Station House Officer would act on any complaint. Held: the petitioner's affidavit did not specifically plead violation of the order, including alleged interference by respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the instance of respondent No.3, and there was no violation of the order by the respondents. Contempt case closed with liberty to file a fresh contempt case if so advised; no costs.

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2365 OF 2025

¶9

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for wrllfully and violating the Orders of the High Court dated 12-09-2024 passed in W.P No 20 l94 of 2024.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mekala Dasu, S/o Late Mekala Gandarah, aged about 69 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio.H.No.10-163, Ghatkesar, Ghatkesar Town, lvledchalMalkajgiri District.

¶12

...Petitioner/Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

D. Bala Swamy, The Station House Officer, Ghatkesar Police Station, Ghatkesar Town and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Drstrict.

¶15

D. S. Rajani, The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶16

Banda Sridhar Yadav,, S/o B. Satyan arayana, aged about 50 years, R/o H.No.1 3-6-438/143, Satyanarayana Colony, Gudimalkapur, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

'contemnors/Respondents

¶18

counser for the^petitioner: sRr KALVALA

¶19

'ANJEEV

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue (TG)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

, )

¶23

HON'BI-,E SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAI

¶24

CONTEMPT CASE No.2365 OF 2025

¶25

OITAI- ORDF]R

¶26

I lcard Mr. Kalr' ala San^jco,. lcarned counsel fqr the petitioner 2 I his Contempt Case is filed alleging willful r rd deliberatc violation olordcr dated 12.09.2024 in W.[']. No.20194 o]' 1024

¶27

1'he pcritioner herein has tiled the aforcsaid r, it pctition to dcclarc thc action ol respondent Nos.3 to 5 thereir in tn'ing tt' dispossess hirn iiom his agricultural land admeasu-r rg Acs. l.l8 guntas in Sun er No.529 ol Ghatkesar Revenuc Villag,: and Mandal Medchal - Ma.lka jgiri District. without issuing any notir i and rvithout fbllorving the proccdurc laid down under [aw, as illegal

¶28

,1. [ [rc said rvrit petition came up fbr hearing on l. .09.2024, on rl,lrich datc. lcamcd Assistant Governlnent l)leaders for^(evenuc and Home. on instructions. submittccl bcfore this Courl .l at thcrc arc disputes betu,een the petitioncr and respondent No.3 Lr:ein. Il any complaint is rnadc rvith regard to the said disputes, re:1 cndent No.5 thcrein i-e-. the Station Ilouse Officcr, Ghatkesar I,c lice Station. would tak6 action. Recording the said submission. t re said writ pctition was closed

li ri j I i I l :

In the entire alfidavit, the petitioner herein has not pleaded specifically' r.vith regard to violation ol the ordcr inctuding the alteged intcrl-ercnce of respondent Nos.I and 2 at Lhe ins[ance ol rcspondcnt No.3. Thcre is no violation olthe aforesaid order by the respondents herc in -

¶34

To punish the rcspondents - contcmnors in l_crms o['sections

¶35

l0 and 12 of the Contcmpt of Courts Acr, 1971. therc shall be rvilllul and delibcrate violation of thc order, much less the atleged violation of ortler b1 lhe rcspondcnts

¶36

ln thb light of the above discussion, th is Contempt Case is ckrsed. Howevcr, liberty is granted to the petitioncrs to file fiesh contcmpt case if so advised. [n the circumstances of the casc. therc shall bc no order as to costs.

¶37

As a seque I thereto, misoellancous petitions, if any, pending in

¶38

the contempt case shall stand closgd.

¶39

Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,