APHC010423772023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4701/2023 Between: 1. K. MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O K. KASI VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS, R/O. NUZENDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Y RAVI SHANKAR REDDY, SUPER INTEND OF POLICE ,PALNADU DISTRICT 2. G ANIL KUMAR, (SHO) SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,INOVALU,PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. K SRINIVASA RAO, INCUMBENT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PALNADU DISTRICT 4. M LAXMI NARAYANA REDDY, INCUMBENT SHO, INAVOLU P.S PALANADU DISTRICT RR 3 AND 4 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18/10/24 VIDE IA NO-1 OF 2024 IN CC NO-4701 OF 2023. ...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 summon the respondent herein and punish him under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court dt. 04-05-2022 passed in W.P.No. 10178/2022, and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the 3rd and 4th respondents herein as the contemnor and punish him under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Hon’ble Court dt. 04-05-2022 passed in W.P.No. 10178/2023, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the additional affidavit and material papers in the above CC.No.4701 of 2023 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to close the contempt case against the 1st respondent herein by discharging him from the proceedings of the above contempt case and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N V R AMARNATH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 2. V MAHESWAR REDDY The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri N.V.R.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing online; Sri V.Maheswar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 3 2. The above contempt case is filed complaining about the violation of the order dated 04.05.2022 in W.P.No.10178 of 2022. 3. The petitioner filed the W.P.No.10178 of 2022 to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent-the Station House Officer, Inavolu Police Station to provide Police Protection in respect of property in D.No.449/B to an extent of 484 Sq.yards, despite the perpetual injunction granted in O.S.No.17/2021on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The said writ petition was allowed on 04.05.2022. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents 2 & 3 are directed to provide police protection to the petitioner for implementation of the decree in O.S.No.17/2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. No costs.” 4. In para-4 of the affidavit filed supporting the above contempt case, the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner made representation dated 17.07.2023 with registration No.RN449291874IN and another representation dated 18.07.2023 with registration No.RN670580952IN to implement the order of the Court. However, the respondents failed to implement it. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent, in para-10 of the counter-affidavit, it was specifically contended that, in obedience to the orders in the writ petition, the deponent went to the vacant land of the petitioner at Nuzendla, along with the Revenue Officials and Panchayat Secretary to provide police protection. At the same time, some villagers gathered there including the petitioner. The authorities directed the villagers not to create any hindrance in the implementation of the orders. 6. It was further pleaded that one Gangineni Brahma Naidu filed W.P.No.18391 of 2022 against the officials, petitioner and his father. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.01.2023. 4 7. On 16.08.2023 the Panchayat Secretary, Grama Sachivalayam, Nuzendla, came to Police Station and submitted a representation along with the representation of the villagers that the villagers opposed for approval of the plan issued by him to the petitioner. The deponent restrained the villagers and provided Police protection to the petitioner in the implementation of the order in W.P.No.10178 of 2022. The 2nd respondent did not violate the order of the Court, in fact, implemented the order of the Court. 8. A separate counter-affidavit was filed by respondents 3 and 4 reiterating the averments. 9. Whether the respondent authorities failed to implement the order dated 04.05.2022 in W.P.No.10178 of 2022 intentionally and deliberately and thus are liable under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 10. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed W.P.No.10178 of 2022 and the said writ petition was allowed directing the respondents 2 and 3 i.e., Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural and the Station House Officer, Inavolu Police Station for providing protection to the petitioner for implementation of the decree in O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. The petitioner made a representation dated 02.06.2023 (Ex.P3) and another representation dated 12.07.2023, requesting to provide police aid. 11. The case of the petitioner is that despite the said representations, the respondents failed to provide police protection. However, as seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the officer visited the site and, in fact, protected the interest of the petitioner. Thereby the respondents implemented the order of the Court. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities failed to provide police protection, this court has not 5 been persuaded by the said submission and indeed, the police provided protection. 13. Hence, this Court does not find any merits in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents failed to implement the order. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. However, since the order passed in W.P.No.10178 of 2022 is in nature of continuous Mandamus, as and when the petitioner approached the respondents, the respondents shall provide protection, in the implementation of injunction in O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 06.03.2025 SNI 6 188 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4701 of 2023 Date: 06.03.2025 SNI