APHC010169352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2075/2024 Between: M.divya @ Madiga Divya Sri V Harinath Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. T M K CHAITANYA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2075/2024 M.divya @ Madiga Divya ...PETITIONER AND ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Contemnor: T M K CHAITANYA The Court made the following: [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...CONTEMNOR 2 BSB, J C.C.No.2075 of 2024 ORDER: This contempt case under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed to punish the respondent/contemnor for willful, wanton and deliberate disobedience of the orders, dated 12.12.2003, of this Court in W.P.No.31663 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a single poor woman and is resident of Kalyandurgam town, Anantapur District. She belongs to schedule caste community. The Government, after conducting due enquiry, granted house site patta in Sy.No.357 in Anantapur in an extent of 45X20 feet, wherein she had established a hotel and eking out her livelihood. While so, as a police constable (6th respondent in the writ petition) is frequently interfering with her possession, she submitted complaints, dated 31.10.2022 and 03.12.2023 against the 6th respondent. She had also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.566 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurgam, Anantapur District, against the 6th respondent and the same is pending. 4. On 12.12.2023, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, represented before this Court that the police are not interfering with the civil dispute and recording his 3 BSB, J C.C.No.2075 of 2024 submission that the police are not interfering with the civil dispute, the writ petition was disposed of. 5. This petitioner filed this contempt case alleging violation of the orders of this Court, dated 12.12.2023. It is further alleged that the respondent police is interfering in the civil dispute and insisting the petitioner frequently to appear before the police station and therefore, the respondent is liable for punishment for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. 6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent. While denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated in the counter at para nos.8 & 9 as follows: “8. ….On 03.12.2023, the 6th respondent submitted a letter to the respondent herein requesting to verify the genuinety of the patta of the petitioner herein and another. On 04.12.2023, the respondent herein addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Kalyandurg, requesting to furnish the details about the genuineness of the patta holders for the land in Sy.No.359-1B, 359-1C, 357 in pursuance to which on 06-12- 2023, Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal, in turn, addressed a letter to the respondent herein mentioning that pattas held by Ramachandra and Divya in Sy.No.357 are not genuine. It is further submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that subsequently, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.31663 of 2023 4 BSB, J C.C.No.2075 of 2024 which was disposed of on 12-12-2023 basing on the instructions furnished by the respondent herein. 9. ……It is further submitted that on 17.03.2024 the respondent herein received 100 call that some nuisance is going at disputed site, to resolve it, two constables were sent to the spot and dispersed them by reprimanding that it is a civil dispute, except that there was no interference with the property of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that on 17.03.2024, the petitioner herself approached the police station to pass on the information with regard to the civil suit pending in respect of the disputed site. It is further submitted neither the petitioner was called to the police station nor interfered with the property of the petitioner.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the submissions as in the pleadings. 8. The petitioner filed a photograph showing the date 17.03.2024 taken at 06.13 pm depicting ‘Kalyandurgam town police station’ from its outside with the picture of constable and a woman said to be the petitioner. 9. Mere presence of the petitioner before the police station cannot be said to be proof of contemptuous act of the respondent. Except the photograph, no other evidence is placed to prove that the petitioner was called to the police station by the respondent as alleged. Therefore, the 5 BSB, J C.C.No.2075 of 2024 petitioner could not prove the alleged contemptuous act. Thus, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 14-02-2025 RAR