APHC010368792024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3454/2024 Between: 1 . AD SPACE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD.,, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, M. PURUSHOTHAMA NAIDU, AGE 51 YEARS. S/O. RANGAIAH NAIDU, R/O PLOT NO. 5. ROAD NO.5, FILM NAGAR SITE-2,HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . SMT D HARITHA I A S, COMMISSIONER OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ATTACHED TO GAD, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 . MR P SRINIVASULU, DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TIRUPATI. R 2 DISCHAREGED AS PER COURT ORDER DT.05.02.2025. VIDE IA NO.1 OF 2024 3 . MR PARAMESWAR REDDY, THE THEN SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ATTACHED TO GAD, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4 . MR B NARASAPPA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRAFFIC DIVISION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5 . M/S K C ALLY COMPANY, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON MR.D. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O FLAT NO.406, BLOCK-2, R.B.R. COMPLEX, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500049. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 The court made the following ORDER: 1. This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 06.02.2024 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 in W.P. No. 2329 of 2024 by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though this Court specifically granted an interim direction on 06.02.2024, directing the respondents as under: “There shall be an interim direction, directing respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 not to erect traffic umbrellas in the places allotted to the petitioner in Tirupati, till the next date of hearing. Post the matter on 12.02.2024.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the interim order dated 06.02.2024 had been extended from time to time. He further submits that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have violated the interim orders of this Court. It is contended that even after receipt of the said orders, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, with mala fide intention to extend undue favour to the 5th respondent, 3 permitted the 5th respondent to remove all the traffic umbrellas erected by the petitioner. Thus, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have acted in violation of the interim order dated 06.02.2024. Accordingly, the present contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 06.02.2024 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 in W.P. No. 2329 of 2024. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that :- (i) ”It is submitted that the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2015 of 2024 challenging the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings dated 12.01.2024 as illegal. The writ petition is still pending. (ii) It is pertinent to submit that by the date of passing the interim orders by this court on 06.02.2024, the 5th respondent was allotted permission for erection of traffic umbrellas vide proceedings dated 14.09.2023 and then after he erected the same. I submit that all the proceedings and erection took place much prior to passing of interim orders by this court. I submit that after the interim orders of this court, we have not 4 issued any proceedings nor erected traffic umbrellas. It is also pertinent to submit here that pursuant to the proceedings issued by this respondent corporation on dated 14.09.2023, the 5th respondent has paid in amount of Rs.16,96,000/- towards advance display device fee vide DD.No.106634 dated 13.09.2023 of Indusland bank, Tirupati and consequently he erected the traffic umbrellas. (iii) It is submitted that the allegations of the petitioner that in spite of the receipt of the said orders, the 5th respondent has got erected the traffic umbrellas contrary to the directions of this Hon’ble court is not correct. It is also not correct that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 encouraged the respondent No.5 to raise the construction around the traffic umbrellas. But it is t rue that t he counsel of the petitioner issued a contempt notice on 20.02.2024. the allegation that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 with a malafide intention to do undue favour to the 5th respondent and have got removed all the traffic umbrellas through the 5th respondent consequently the 5th respondent erected the traffic umbrellas by removing the traffic umbrellas erected by the petitioner is false and fabricated”. 6. The respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that:- (i) “It is submitted that the petitioner filed the present contempt case alleging willful violation of the interim orders of this court despite no willful violation of the 5 interim orders of this court from my side. I submit that the petitioner averred in the contempt affidavit that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 encouraged respondent No.5 to raise construction around the traffic umbrellas to make them as permanent and also the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in contempt case with mala fide intention have got removed the traffic umbrellas through 5th respondent in contempt case without there being any factual foundation. 7. The respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that:- (i) “I submit that I have always got high regard and respect the orders of this court and I never ventured to disobey the orders passed by this court. Though the petitioner has been harassing this respondent by making false allegations and threatening the officials under the guise of contempt, despite investing huge amount for doing lawful business, but for the orders of this court, this respondent is obeying and strictly followed the orders as well as the directions/instructions issued by the authorities. (ii) The 1st respondent awarded the contract and permission for erection of traffic umbrellas with the 5th respondent dated 14.09.2023 pursuant to the payment made by him as per the public auction conducted by the 1st respondent on 13.09.2023 before passing interim order of this court 06.02.2024 the 5th respondent herein erected contract umbrellas 6 as permitted by the 5th respondent, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 categorically denied the allegations of the petitioner the traffic umbrellas of the petitioner was removed by the 5th respondent. (iii) The learned counsel for the 5th respondent categorically stated that interim orders not extended after may 2024 the traffic umbrellas which were erected by the petitioner much is prior to the order of this court and traffic umbrellas of the petitioner already removed before to the interim order of this court as directed by the respondent No.1 therefore there is no violation and disobedience on the part of this court. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, since there are no merits in the writ petition, this Court dismissed the same by passing a detailed order dated 09.07.2025. In view of the same, it is submitted that the present contempt case is liable to be closed. 9. Considering the submissions made by all learned counsel, it is observed that this Court had passed an interim order dated 06.02.2024, directing the respondent Nos. 2, 5, and 6 not to erect the traffic umbrellas of the 5th respondent at the places allotted to the petitioner till the next date of hearing. It is an admitted fact that the said interim order was extended up to May 2024. As per 7 the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear and categorical that the subject advertisement contract was awarded to the 5th respondent on 14.09.2023, for which the 5th respondent paid the entire amount in lieu of the auction conducted by the 1st respondent, and was permitted, on the same date, to remove the traffic umbrellas of the petitioner and erect the traffic umbrellas of the 5th respondent. By virtue of the proceedings dated 12.01.2025, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of, wherein it was stated that the 5th respondent was permitted to remove the traffic umbrellas of the petitioner as stated above. On perusal of the proceedings dated 12.01.2025, under which the representation of the petitioner was disposed of, it is clearly stated that the existing umbrellas had been removed much prior to the order of this Court. The petitioner, however, conveniently suppressed the said material fact and obtained interim orders from this Court. In view of such suppression of material facts, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as any claim founded upon suppression or concealment of facts cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court finds that the interim order passed by this court on 06.02.2024 could not have been enforced, and there is no 8 violation or disobedience on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 22.08.2025 klk klk 9 411 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.3454 of 2024 22.08.2025 klk klk