APHC010395832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3627/2024 Between: Vuti Chengaiah ...PETITIONER AND Sri L Subbarayudu I P S and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 2. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following Order: 1. This Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order, dated 02.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8583 of 2024, whereby, the respondent police in the Writ Petition are directed to take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation, dated 20.03.2024. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-police wherein, paragraph No.5 of the counter reads as under: “5.It is submitted that, I joined as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Vakadu PS, Tirupati District on 19.08.2024. Later, the petitioner came to Vakadu PS on 19.09.2024 and lodged a complaint. Basing on the contents of the complaint, this Respondent has summoned the both parties for preliminary inquiry. Further, the both parties appeared before me, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Kota granted permanent injunction order in favour of the petitioner vide OS.No.16/2016 on 25.01.2024, this Respondent advised to the Respondents in the petitioner’s Complaint, not to interfere with the petitioner’s site. Further, this Respondent informed to the petitioner’s that, whenever the Revenue authorities fix the boundaries of your land, we will give police protection at that time. Further, this Respondent took the statement from the petitioner and her daughters along with signatures.” 3. It is seen that the police advised the unofficial respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that despite the fact that the suit has been decreed in his favour, the unofficial respondents are interfering with the possession of the property. 5. Considering the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application before the police seeking police protection; on such application, the police are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders from time to time, keeping in view of the fact that the suit has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed. ___________________________ K SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date: 21.03.2025 PKR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY 166 CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3627/2024 Date: 21.03.2025 PKR