::1:: APHC010257002012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1079/2012 Between: 1. SEELAMSETTY SIVA RAMAIAH, S/O RATTAIAH, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DAMMENNU, VUNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI B H V S N KISHORE KUMAR, S/o Butchi Raju, Executive Officer of Sri Kota Sattemma Ammavari Temple, Thimmarajupalem, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. ...CONTEMNOR 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 punish the respondent under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of courts Act for deliberately disobeying, disregarding and disrespecting the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.M.P.No.1394 of 2012 in W.P.No.1129 of 2012, dt:20-02-2012, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:1. M VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Contemnor: ::2:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.1079 of 2012 This Court made the following ORDER: When the matter was taken up for hearing in the morning session today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was accordingly passed over to the post-lunch session, as the case pertains to the year of 2012. Even when the matter was taken up in the afternoon session, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed for non-compliance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 20.01.2012 which reads as under: “It is certainly open to the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the shop room to respondent No.1-temple on his own, if he were not the successful bidder at the auctions that were conducted on 21.12.2011. If, on the other hand, he were to be the highest bidder for Shop No.7, it is certainly open to him to continue to occupy the said shop room and carry on his business, in accordance with the fresh grant. If the petitioner fails to handover vacant possession of the shop room, on or immediately after 01.02.2012, it is open to respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law seeking his eviction there from and also recover damages.” ::3:: 3. On perusal of the above interim orders of this Court, this Court specifically directed the petitioner to vacate the subject shop vested with temple and handover the peaceful vacant possession to the temple authorities immediately after 01.02.2012 and he is entitled to occupy the shop No.7 for which he became highest bidder. 4. Pending Contempt Petition, the main Writ Petition No.1129/2012 itself dismissed on merits by holding as under: “It is an admitted fact that petitioner filed Revision Petition No.67/2008 and the said Revision was disposed of with certain directions. As per the orders passed in the Revision, the lease of the petitioner was only for a period of 3 years and the same ends by February, 2012 and therefore, there is no prohibition in conducting the auction in advance, in order to see that the lease is handed over to the successful bidder in time. Admittedly, having filed the Revision, the petitioner has suppressed the said fact in the writ petition, as such; the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. In the counter it is stated that after following due process of law, the possession has been taken over and the same was handed over to the successful bidder. As such the same cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on sole ground of suppression of fact of filing revision petition and order passed in the same. The person who does not come to Court with clean hands is not entitled for any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondents have violated the interim orders passed by this Court, when the main writ petition itself has come up for final hearing, any interim order passed will merge with the final order.” 5. In view of the final orders by this Court, it is clear and categorical that there is no violation on the part of the ::4:: respondents. On the other hand the petitioner suffered the order to get it vacated and handover the possession of the subject property. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the present Contempt Case is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dt: 01.04.2026 krk ::5:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.1079 of 2012 Dt: 01.04.2026 krk 76