>■ HC010226732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI t.'- % ■ -s/ c f n A I 1 THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1190 OF 2025 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents/Contemnors and punish them for willfully and deliberately violating the orders dated. 16.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in WP No 15035 of 2024. Between: V. Parameswara Reddy, S/o Late V Shankar Reddy, Peddapadu (V), Kallur (M), Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Shaik Mohammed Ali, S/o Not known to the petitioner Aged about not known to the petitioner Chief Executive Officer AP State Waqf Board, Imdadhghar Complex Vijayawada. 2. D Althaf Hussain, S/o Not known to the petitioner Aged'about known to the petitioner Inspector Auditor of Waqfs, Kurnool AP State Waqf Board, Imdadhghar Complex Vijayawada. not ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents :SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASRA The Court made the following order: APHC010226732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] HI ■JAW THURSDAY.THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAG ADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1190/2025 Between: 1.V. PARAMESWARA REDDY, S/0 LATE V SHANKAR REDDY, PEDDAPADU (V). KALLUR (M), KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ALI, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER EXECUTIVE OFFICER AP STATE WAQF BOARD, IMDADHGHAR COMPLEX VIJAYAWADA. 2.D ALTHAF HUSSAIN, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED'ABOUT NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AUDITOR OF WAQFS, KURNOOL IMDADHGHAR COMPLEX VIJAYAWADA. CHIEF INSPECTOR AP STATE WAQF BOARD, ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to Respondents/Contemnors and punish them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully and deliberately violating the orders dated. 16.07.2024 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in WP No 15035 of 2024 and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR initiate contempt proceedings against the pass Counsel for the Contemnor{S): 1.SHAIKKHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: , THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1190/2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 16.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15035 of 2024. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 2. respondents. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner 3. submits that even though this Court issued a direction to the respondents to comply with the orders dated 16.07.2024 passed of this Court in W.P.No. 15035 of 2024, the respondents did not choose to comply with the same. Hence, the contempt case. For better understanding, the operative portion of the orders dated 4. 16.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15035 of 2024 is extracted hereunder: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. For the reasons nnentloned in the accompanying affidavit and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be an interim direction of Status Quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties, in respect of the subject property for a period of four (04) weeks. ” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pending interim orders, the respondents proceeded further and issued show cause notice dated 25.03.2025 under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 requesting the petitioner to prove his title and possession over the subject property. He further submits the said show cause notice is contrary to the interim order passed by this Court. Therefore, by issuing the show cause notice, the respondents have violated the orders of this Hon’ble Court and are guilty of disobedience thereof. that 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of even passing status quo orders by this Court, the subject property i already enlisted at the prohibitory properties list Registration Act, 1908. He further submits that the IS under section 22-A of the respondents issued show cause notice only to ascertain the veracity and legal rights of the petitioner not to disturb or change the nature of the subject property. Therefore issuance of the show cause notice is in furtherance to address the whole claim the petitioner. He further submits that later the said show but may not come in the violation of the order of this Court. It as prayed in the main writ petition by cause notice was set aside by this Court through an order passed in another writ petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is neither violation nor disobedience on part of the respondents to be punished under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned perusal of the material facts counsel and on as stated above, since the alleged show cause notice was issued by the respondents did not meant for any disturbance nor to change the nature and character of the subject property, therefore, it cannot be said that show cause notice issued is itself in violation of the interim orders passed by this Court. As contented by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner herein assailed the show cause notice issued by the respondents and the same is set aside by this Court through a separate order in another writ petition. As such, the respondents redressed the grievance of the petitioner and removed the subject property from the prohibited properties list under section 22- A of the Registration Act, 1908. In view of the facts stated above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation or disobedience of the orders of this Court on part of the respondents and the contempt case is liable to be closed. 8. 9. Accordingly, the contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Shaik Mohammed AN, S/o Not known to the petitioner Aged about not known to the petitioner Chief Executive Officer AP State Waqf Board, Imdadhghar Complex Vijayawada. 2. D Althaf Hussain, S/o Not known to the petitioner Aged about not known to the petitioner Inspector Auditor of Waqfs, Kurnool AP State Waqf Board, Imdadhghar Complex Vijayawada. 3. One CC to Sri Mallavelli Naga Sai Lalith Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Shaik Khaja Basha Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies fr HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 ORDER CC NO. 1190 OF 2025 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE