APHC010089302024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the twenty seventh day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.1270 of Between: Gareeb Guide (voluntary and Shri Manazir Jeelani Samoon, I. A. S. and others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Dr. D. V. Rao Counsel for the contemnors: 1. V. Maheswar Reddy 2. Nil The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the twenty seventh day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.1270 of 2024 Gareeb Guide (voluntary organization) and others ...Petitioners Shri Manazir Jeelani Samoon, I. A. S. and others ...Contemnors Counsel for the petitioners: Counsel for the contemnors: Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Friday, the twenty seventh day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioners ...Contemnors 2 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for misleading this Court willfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court, dated 08.02.2024, in W.P.No.1703 of 2024. 2. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: a. About sixty years ago, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple was constructed in the land in Sy.No.76(3) in Chinnadugam Village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner No.1 has been successfully conducting annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in the same village since 2017, as none expressed interest for the maintenance of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, including the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam District / respondent No.5 in the writ petition. The petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.1703 of 2024 is a committee registered vide No.18 of 2021, dated 20.01.2021. With the help of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2 successfully conducted the 59th annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in the year 2021. Even though the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.2797 of 2022 / sole accused in F.I.R.No.116 of 2021, as per the proceedings Rc.No.Nil, dated 02.02.2022, of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam District, did not file any rival claim to conduct the 60th annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in the year 2022, the respondent No.1 herein rejected the application of the petitioner vide endorsement RC.No.200/2022/E3/dated 01.02.2022 basing on a false report of Tahsildar, vide Rc.No.2022/A, dated 10.02.2022, and another false report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer 3 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 dated 09.02.2022. After 2021, no F.I.R. has been registered under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against the villagers of Chinnadugam which is within the jurisdiction of Jalumuru Police Station. On 29.11.2023, vide acknowledgment dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to the District Collector, Srikakulam for granting permission and providing police aid to conduct the 62nd annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple. But, there is no action till the date of filing of the W.P.No.1703 of 2024. Therefore, the said writ petition was filed. On 08.02.2024, this Court passed the following order: “…directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation providing all the proposed activities for which permission is sought, and thereafter, the concerned authorities shall dispose of the representation forthwith and if any particulars required are lacking in the representation, the concerned authorities may ask the petitioners to furnish the further details instead of keeping the representation pending for consideration, as the schedule date for the ceremonies is fast approaching…” b. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 08.02.2024 through e-mail and another representation dated 09.02.2024 with the details of cultural activities and collected acknowledgment of receipt of representation. As there was no action by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on 13.02.2024, the petitioner No.1 issued a notice before contempt to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 under acknowledgment. Even then, there was no action by the respondents. On 13.02.2024, the respondent No.1 issued proceedings vide SR No.93/2024/JA(LC) / dated 13.02.2024, to the respondent No.2 and the 4 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam District, as follows: “… In this connection, it is pertinent to state that there is no specific direction from the Hon’ble High Court of AP in the above WP to the respondent authorities, to sent notice before contempt by the petitioner in the matter, and therefore, the question of issuance of notice before contempt by the petitioner to the Respondent authorities does not arise under law… However, in view of the representation, dated: 08.02.2024 of the petitioner and observations of the Hon’ble High Court of AP in the reference 1 cited, you are requested to examine the representation of the petitioner dated: 08.02.2024 in detail duly following the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in its order, dated: 08.02.2024 in the reference 2 cited and to take further course of action to accord necessary permission as sought for by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and rules and regulations to avoid law and order problem and also untoward incidents if any and submit compliance report.” c. Neither the respondent No.1 nor the respondent No.2 granted permission to the petitioner till the date of filing the contempt petition. On 14.02.2024, a legal notice before contempt action was also issued to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 through e-mails, but there is no action by the respondents. On 20.02.2024, at about 01.00 P.M., S.I. of Jalumuru Police Station informed the petitioner No.1 over phone that office of the respondent No.2 instructed him on the same day to inform the petitioner 5 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 No.1 to pay money for temporary electricity connection and to grant permission to use mike and supporting letter from the villager and send the same to him immediately through WhatsApp. The petitioner No.1 paid Rs.2,850/- to grant permission to use mike and Rs.168/- to provide electricity connection and submitted them through WhatsApp messenger at 04.19 P.M. on the same day, along with the supporting letter from the villager. But, neither the respondent No.1 nor the respondent No.2 granted permission to the petitioner No.1. It is settled law that tendering affidavits and undertakings containing false statements would amount to contempt of Court. Under the above circumstances, this contempt case is filed. 3. No notice was ordered to the respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 has done his part by addressing a letter dated 13.02.2024 to the respondent No.2 for implementation of the order of this Court. 4. The respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit with the averments briefly stated as follows: a. Since the schedule date for the annual celebrations was fast approaching, S.I., Jalumuru Police Station, on receipt of representation dated 08.02.2024 and 09.02.2024 with the details of cultural activities submitted to the District Collector, Srikakulam District seeking permission to conduct the 62nd annual celebrations received through M.E.M., Jalumuru vide RC.No.200/2022/SA, dated 13.02.2024, this respondent got the village properly visited, evaluated the situation in respect of possibility to conduct celebrations and submitted a compliance report to the M.E.M., Jalumuru on 14.02.2024. On 15.02.2024, the letter of the District Collector, Srikakulam, dated 13.02.2024 was received along with the representation of the petitioner 6 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 No.1, dated 08.02.2024 with a request to submit a detailed report of law and order situation in village with regard to granting permission to conduct the annual celebrations / cultural activities from 20.02.2024 to 24.02.2024 in Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple under the management of M/s. Gareeb Guide Voluntary Organization. On 17.02.2024, the letter was forwarded to the Circle Inspector, Narasannapeta, to examine the representation in compliance of the order of the High Court for taking necessary action to accord permission to conduct annual celebrations. b. On 24.02.2024, a compliance report was submitted to the District Collector, Srikakulam vide C.No.518/C.2/DCRB/SKL/2024. The police acted properly on the letter of the District Collector, Srikakulam. There is no contempt on the part of the police in the implementation of the directions of this High Court. The S.I., Jalumuru submitted a report to the M.E.M., Jalumuru. In pursuance of the directions of this High Court, S.I., Jalumuru, visited the village to assess the situation about possibility to conduct festival, interacted with Peesa Srinivasa Rao and others and learnt that they have no objection to peacefully celebrate the festival, but they raised objection for the publicity made by Gareeb Guide Organization by distributing pamphlets with their names without their knowledge about the celebrations of the 62nd anniversary celebrations though the named persons have no nexus with the temple committee. In the year 2022, the 61st anniversary celebrations were peacefully held by the endowments department, duly obtaining undertaking from the groups of both political parties. c. During the year 2024, the endowments department held a meeting with both the parties and decided to celebrate the 62nd anniversary festival jointly by arranging cultural programmes without any 7 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 disputes and filed an application for granting permission to use mike vide I.D.No.TAPEV01240- 0227799, dated 17.02.2024. The S.D.P.O., Tekkali, along with C.I., Narasannapeta and S.I., Jalumuru, held a meeting with both the groups and after taking assurance, permission was granted to use mike in annual celebrations from 20.02.2024 to 24.02.2024 in a peaceful manner and directed them not to indulge in any unlawful activities and cautioned them that the permission would be cancelled if there is any violation of conditions. d. Accordingly, the festival was celebrated on the first day i.e., on 20.02.2024 in a peaceful manner. However, on the next day i.e., 21.02.2024, while celebrations were going on, members of both the parties quarrelled shouting at each other and also exhibited ‘reelaa reelaa’ in an obscene programme, and thereby violated the terms and the conditions of permission. On receipt of the information of the same, the Jalumuru police rushed to the Chinnadugam Village, intercepted the programme and cancelled the permission to use mike issued earlier vide proceedings C.No.05/SDO-T/Gen/2024, dated 21.02.2024 to control further law and order issue in the village, besides registered a case on 21.02.2024 in Crime No.32/2024 under Sections 290 and 291 I.P.C. against the organizers concerned. A charge sheet was filed on 27.02.2024 and is pending for trial. The respondent No.2 made sincere efforts to execute the order of this Court to conduct annual celebrations in the stipulated period and has never disobeyed the order of this Court. The respondent No.2 is a law abiding officer and had utmost respect for the Court. Therefore this respondent requested to close the contempt case. 5. The rejoinder to the counter affidavit was filed with the averments briefly as follows: 8 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 a. The contents of the counter affidavit of the respondent No.2 are false. Being aware of the order, dated 08.02.2024, the respondent No.2 willfully violated the order. Though the petitioners submitted a representation dated 09.02.2024 with the necessary documents, there has been no action by the respondents till 13.02.2024. Therefore, notice before contempt, dated 13.02.2024, was issued to the respondents. Thus, the respondent No.1 issued proceeding dated 13.02.2024 to the respondent No.2. On 20.02.2024, in the afternoon, the S.I., Jalumuru Police Station informed the petitioners over phone as already stated in the contempt petition. On 21.02.2024, the S.D.P.O., Tekkali granted the permission vide proceedings C.No.05/SDO- T/Gen/2024, dated 21.02.2024 to some person, other than the petitioners, by taking bribe from him. Basing on such permission, the said person held programme of nude dance in the vicinity of the God. b. It was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioners along with all evidence. Then the S.D.P.O., Tekkali cancelled the permission to use mike granted to the concerned person, but the police did not stop such indecent programme held in the vicinity of the God. The respondents did not grant permission to the petitioners. Therefore, there is willful and deliberate violation of order of this Court by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is liable to be punished. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in spite of knowledge of the order, the respondent No.2 had willfully violated the order. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that this Court ordered only to consider the representation and as per the direction, the same has been considered and appropriate steps were 9 BSB, J C.C.No.1270 of 2024 taken as indicated in the counter and it is only thereafter, due to law and order problem, the permissions accorded were cancelled and the same has nothing to do with the alleged violation of the order. It was also submitted by him that it is not only the petitioners who have shown interest in the celebration but also others are part of it and when there was misuse of the permission accorded, necessary steps were taken, and therefore, the same cannot be considered as willful violation of the order of this Court. 8. As can be seen from the order, dated 08.02.2021, of this Court, the direction given to the respondents is to dispose of the representation without any further delay as the festival was approaching and this Court did not direct the kind of decision to be taken thereon or the further steps to be taken thereafter to act upon the decision taken. Therefore, depending on the facts and circumstances, if any decision was taken while discharging the duty of the respondents, merely because permission accorded was cancelled, for reasons consistent with the interest, it cannot be viewed as contempt of the order of this Court. As such, there is no merit in the petition. 9. In the result, 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 27.02.2026 NSM / RAR