APHC010373632015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEALS Nos: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of 2015 CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 12/2015 Between: Principal Secretary, ...APPLICANT AND Sri Balusulamma Thai Temple Committee and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Applicant: 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K S MURTHY 2. .... The Court made the following Common Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As all these Contempt Appeals arise out of a Common Order, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 2. The respondents 1 & 2 in these Contempt Appeals were the Writ Petitioners, in W.P.No.26700 of 2014. 3. The Writ Petitioners, who are managing the affairs of Sri Balusulamma Thalli Temple located in Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, with the complaint that the respondents in the Writ Petition, were seeking to take over 2 the temple with following the procedure set out under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 [for short “the Endowments Act, 1987”]. A Learned Single Judge, of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by his Order dated 11.09.2014, had granted interim direction as prayed for in the case. The interim prayer sought by the Writ Petitioners was a direction to the respondents therein to restrain them from conducting affairs of the temple including opening of the Annadanam Hundi, apart from suspending the proceedings, dated 27.06.2014 and other consequential proceedings. It may be noted that the proceedings mentioned in the prayer, related to the publication, under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Endowments Act, 1987,notifying the temple as a temple registered under the Endowments Act, 1987. 4. Thereafter, the respondents in the Writ Petition filed a vacate petition and the matter was heard and finally allowed. By an Order, dated 10.07.2015, the Learned Single Judge set aside all the Orders under which the temple was notified as well as the appointment of the 6th respondent therein as the trustee of the temple. 5. While the Writ Petition was pending, the respondents 1 & 2 herein, filed Contempt Case No.1931 of 2014, on the ground that the respondents therein, who are now the appellants in the present set of Contempt Appeals, had deliberately violated the Orders of the Court, dated 11.09.2014, it was the case of the respondents 1 & 2 herein, that despite the 3 Order of the Court, dated 11.09.2014, passed in the presence of the counsel of the appellants herein, there was deliberate violation of the Orders of the Court. It was contended that despite the Orders of the Court, the appellants herein had deliberately refused to either receive the Orders of the Court or to comply with the said Orders by handing over management of the temple back to the 2nd respondent herein. 6. The respondents 6 & 7, who are appellants, in C.A.Nos.16 &17 of 2015, had filed counter affidavits contending that there was no violation of the directions of the Court and steps were taken to comply with the directions of the Court. The Learned Single Judge passed a Common Order, in both W.P.No.26700 of 2014 and C.C.No.1931 of 2014, on 10.07.2015. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both sides and after noticing the fact that the copy of the Orders was not received by these respondents, despite the said Orders being dispatched by Registered Post Acknowledge Due and keeping in view the conduct of the 6th respondent, in mobilizing people to oppose the Orders of the Court and to browbeat the Writ Petitioner No.2 had held that all the respondents were guilty of the violating the Orders of the Court and sentenced the respondents 1 to 4 & 6, in the Contempt Case, a fine of Rs.1,500/- each. While sentencing the 5th respondent therein to simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 7. Aggrieved by these Orders, the respondents in the Contempt Case have filed the present set of Contempt Appeals. The details of the appellants and the Contempt Appeals are set out below:- 4 8. Heard Learned Government Pleader appearing in the office of the Learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in the Contempt Appeals. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would contend that they were unaware of the Orders as well as the violation of the Orders. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the Learned Single Judge except holding that they were aware of the Orders of the Court, S l. N o Contempt Appeal No. Contempt Case and Writ Petition No and date of Common Order Writ Petition No and date of Order Appellant Name 1 C.A. No.12 of 2015 W.P.No.26700 of 2014 & C.C.No.1931 of 2014 Dated 10.07.2015 W.P.MP.No.3380 of 2014 In W.P.No.26700 of 2014, dated 11.9.2014 Mr. J. C. Sharma, Principle Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 C.A.No.13 of 2015 W.P.No.26700 of 2014 & C.C.No.1931 of 2014 Dated 10.07.2015 W.P.MP.No.3380 of 2014 In W.P.No.26700 of 2014, dated 11.9.2014 Ms. Anuradha, Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 3 C.A.No.14 of 2015 W.P.No.26700 of 2014 & C.C.No.1931 of 2014 Dated 10.07.2015 W.P.MP.No.3380 of 2014 In W.P.No.26700 of 2014, dated 11.9.2014 Mr. Satyanarayana, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 C.A.No.15 of 2015 W.P.No.26700 of 2014 & C.C.No.1931 of 2014 Dated 10.07.2015 W.P.MP.No.3380 of 2014 In W.P.No.26700 of 2014, dated 11.9.2014 Mr. G. Suri Babu, Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 C.A.No.16 of 2015 W.P.No.26700 of 2014 & C.C.No.1931 of 2014 Dated 10.07.2015 W.P.MP.No.3380 of 2014 In W.P.No.26700 of 2014, dated 11.9.2014 Mr. K.V. Ramana, Inspector of Endowments Department, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 6 C.A.No.17 of 2015 W.P.No.26700 of 2014 & C.C.No.1931 of 2014 Dated 10.07.2015 W.P.MP.No.3380 of 2014 In W.P.No.26700 of 2014, dated 11.9.2014 Mr. Sri Rangam Ramanjaneyulu, Ex- Single Trustee – Sri Balusulamma Thalli Temple, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 5 had not given any finding as to how they were guilty of deliberate or willful violation of the Orders of the Court. As far as, the 5th respondent is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, in the Contempt Case, would contend that the 5th respondent had resigned, in March-2015 and had handed over management of the temple back to the Writ Petitioner No.2 and as such, had complied with the directions of the Court. He would contend that the slight delay in complying with the directions of the Court may be condoned. 10. A perusal of the Orders of the Learned Single Judge would show that the Learned Single Judge has meticulously gone through the facts of the case and the conduct of the respondents 5 & 6 in the Contempt Case. The findings of the Learned Single Judge that the respondents 5 & 6 had deliberately refused to receive the Orders of the Court, by locking the premises, where the notices were to be served, had not really been assailed by the respondents 5 & 6. The fact that the 5th respondent, in the Contempt Case, had not resigned till March-2015, despite the knowledge of the Orders of the Court, is sufficient to hold that the 5th respondent, in the Contempt Case, had deliberately violated the Orders of the Court by refusing to resign, till the Contempt Case had been filed against him. 11. As far as the respondents 1 to 4, in the Contempt Case, are concerned, though they cannot deny that they were unaware of the Orders of the Court, have a valid defense on the ground that Writ Petitioners had not made any allegations against them of refusing to comply with the directions of 6 the Court despite the notice of the Orders of the Court. Even otherwise, the respondents 1 to 4 were only supervisory authorities and no allegation seems to have been made against these persons that they had been approached by the Writ Petitioners for compliance of the directions of the Court and that they had refused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a case of willful violation of the Orders of the Court, attracting the penal provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not appear to be made out against them. To this extent, the appeals filed by these respondents are allowed and the order of conviction and payment of fine by them is set aside. 12. As far as the respondents 5 & 6 are concerned, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned Single Judge that both respondents 5 & 6, in the Contempt Case, had refused to comply with the directions of the Court despite the knowledge of the said Orders. In the circumstances, the conviction and levy of fine of Rs.1,500/- on the 6th respondent does not require any interference and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, Contempt Appeal No.16 of 2015 is dismissed. 13. The 5th respondent had been convicted for violation of the Orders of the Court and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,500/-. In view of the fact that the sentence of simple imprisonment, for a period of three months, had been hanging over the head of the 5th respondent for nine years is, to the mind of this Court, sufficient punishment as far as the sentence of simple imprisonment is concerned. In the circumstances, the Judgment of the 7 Learned Single Judge convicting the 5th respondent, in the Contempt Case, is confirmed. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and payment of fine of Rs.1,500/- is modified by setting aside the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and confirming the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.1,500/-. 14. The respondents 5 & 6 shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.1,500/-, within in three weeks failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment of one week each. 15. Accordingly, the Contempt Appeal Nos.12 to 15 are allowed, Contempt Appeal No.16 of 2015 is dismissed and Contempt Appeal No.17 of 2015 is partly allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J BSM 8 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEALS Nos:12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of 2015 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 25.02.2025 BSM