S. Rama Devi vs. Sri. B. Sharath Chandra And Another

Contempt Case No.200 ol 2021 is fllcd secking to punish the respondents tbr willlul and wanton disobcdicncc ol [he irttclirl oldel dated 08.02.202f passed ir.r Writ Petition No.27l I ol-202 I .

Hcard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, leamed cotrnsel lor petitioner. Sri Deepak Misra. learned counsel lirr respondent No.3 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddl'. learn,-'ci Stancling ( otrnse l for rcspondent No.l- Mun ic ipalities. (When the atbre:aid cascs !\cre 3u aiting r e rdict ol' this Court. Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, adr ocate, has addrcsscd letter to the Registry stating that he has withdrawn vakalat ibr the p.'trtioner. 1

Since the 'ssues arising in thc Writ Petition and the Contempt Case arc intcrconncctcd. both nrattcrs atc lreard togethcr and are being disposed ol b1 this cott'rtt-'rotl ttrtlcr.

Llricl' lects o1'thc casc as aVcrt cd in rvIit a(lldavit arc that the petitioncr is a tcnant of lcspoudcnt No.3 in respect of the premises bearing ll.No.6-l/1471. I{arngiri. Oppositc to Women's College, Nalgonda District (heleinallcr r.'firrcd to as 'thc sr-rbiect prernises') and is running a shop therein undcr thc nanrc and stlle ol'"Mis. Sri Satya Dtrrga Industries"l that both the petitioncr and respondcnt No.3 had agreed that the subject prcnriscs rroLrlcl bc lcased ii Its.15.000'- pcr nlonth and an adr''ance of t{s.1.Oft.000 - rras deposrtcd b1 pctitioner with respondent No.J ar-rd an agreernent vras enlercd betr,rccn the parties to that efll'ect in the year 2015 fbr a pcriod or' I r rno.rhs arrd rherealicr. it continued upon understandins of both parties w,irhou t alt) acr.eelrent.

.'

While so, when respondent No.3 threatened the petitioner [o vacate the subject premises in the month of September, 2020, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 30.09.2020 stating that the subject prenrises would be vacated only when a notice terminating the tenancy between the parties is received. Further, thc pctitioncr tlled O.S No.30 of 202 I on the flle of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against respondent No.3 lor grant of permanent injunction restraining lespondent No.3 and his henchmen lrom forcibly evicting the petitioner lrom the subject premises and the same is pending tbr adjudication.

It is lurther avcrred that on 30.01.202 l, the subject prernises was dernolished and rrattresscs worth ol' Rs.5,00,000/- wcrc stolcn lcading to loss of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioncr; that the pctitioncr has complained about the high handed action of respondent No.3 to various Police officials, but in vain; and that on 0l .02.2021, a notice was issued by respondent No.2, under Section 182 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20 l9 instructing the petitioner to vacate and demolish the subject premises within 24 hours since the same is in dangerous and serious condition likcly to catrse danger to the inrnates of' the subject pretniscs, the surrounding ncighbours and also passers-by. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the present Writ Petition is flled.

Allcging n illlul and deliberate disobedience of the afbresaid order by the' respondcnts. thc petitioncr lllcd C(''No 100 of 202l ln the C'ontempt Casc. the petitioucr contcnd,:d that rhor-rgh the irrtcr-irri oldcr'08.01.101 I was commurricatecl to the respondcnts immediately. they have continued with the dernolition o1'suhject prernises on the very same date i.e..08.02.2021, in utter r iolation o1'tht- in[erim orders passed by this CoLrrt and he nce. sought to punish the responclerlts rLnder the Conternpt of Courls Act' 8. \ counter s lllcd on bchall crl' respondent No.l, rvherein it is inter .1/1.i strrtecl rhar .re S:rrha Sir a Rao has gir,'n a corxplaint lcquesl.ing t0 Vacate ot]c Saneishe tr) A Iekhr a. thc lcase holder of the sub.ject premises,

It is f ultlrcr statecl that ser en day's alier issuatlce of the impugned norice. rhe stafl- ol'Municipality visited the subject premises on 08.02.202 I and shihecl all rhe nrarr:rial that r,,,.a s present thercin to Aryra [vsya Bhavan for safi custocrr 'rnci panchanalra \\as arso conducted by the Tahsildar, there'lbre the corrtcntion ol'thc pctitioner that the rnaterial was stolen is not 7 LNA. ) wPNo.2711 ol2O21 & CCN,.20A ol 2021 true and that in the impugned notice issued by the authorities, the urgency is set-out as to why the subject premises has to be demolished.

It is finally stated by respondent No.3 rhat the petitioner is not the lease holder and there is no cvidence to prove that the subject prernises were leased to the petitioncr and contcndcd that the CS1' registration certificate filed by the petitioner is nor l.rue and thereby prayed to dismiss the w rit pelition lt [.earned counsel appearing lbr petitioner submitted that the inrpugned notice was issued by respondenl No.2, at the instance and in collusion with the respondent No.3, by t'alsely alleging that the subject premises is in dangerous conditiorr and is likcly to lall, thcrcby causing dangcr to the passersby. He further submitted that the petitioner vidc lcgal notice dated 02.02.2021 informed respondenr No.2 with regard to pendency of the civil suit betbre Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda I)istrict, in respecr of the subject premises and also other written complaints made by petitioner to various authorities with regard to the unlawful and illegal actions of respondent No.3 and his son. ll.l. Learned counsel lbr the pcririoner turthcr contcnded that the impugned notice is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-

Pcr contra. lcarrtcd counscl lbr respondent No.3 as well as leamed Standinrr. CoLrtrscl lor \lLrnicipalities lrave rrladc subtnissions on altnost similar lines. contending that as thc subject premises was in a dilapidated condition ancl uas likcll to collapse at an) tilne, thereby posing danger to the inmates ol the prernises as r'vell as the neighbours and passersby, ona corrplairrt rnade b1 thc orrner of'thc subject pretrises, :he irnpugned notice r.ras issucd inr okirg Scction l8l ol- the Municipalities Act; that the subject as such, the petitione r ltas no /().,11.! \.1( t(/l l(\ qLrcStiOn the rmpLrgnc.d notice and as such. the .Wiir I,c,ririon be ine der oid of.merits is liable to be dismissed WPNo 2711o12O21 & CCN,.2AO ol 2021

Learned counsel for respondents in support of their submission that the petitioner not being a lessee of the subject premises is not entitled to question thc irnpugncd noticc. produccd bctbrc this Coun a copy ol'order dated 04.07.2024 passed by this Court in WPNo. 1802 I of 2023, wherein this Coun has categorically held that the petitioner has no semblance of right over the subject premises as she is not the lessee under the agreement

Adverting to the aloresaid pleadings and the rival submissions advanced by learned counscl lor both the parties, the prirne issues that fall tbr consideration of.this Courl arc:- l. Whether the pelitioner hos locus stondi to queslion lhe impugned notice?

If so, whether the impugned notice is suslainable? 3. llthether the oction of respondenls ottroct the contempl of Court?

The petitioner approached this Coun aggricved by the acrion of the respondent authorities in issuing noticc undcr Section 182 ol' the Municipalities Act. The said noticc was in fact scnt l.o onc Sangishctty AIekya, daughter of the petitioner. [:urtheq it is also the case ol the petitioner that initially, in the year 20 I5, the agreement in respect of the subject premises was entercd inlo betwecn her daughter and thc owner thereof lor a period of ll uronths and subsequently, on mutual

I Iere. ir is trite to nore rhat during the pendencv of the present writ 10 granted pcnnission for perusal ol'the cntire rnaterial placcd belore it bY Pctrtion. thc owrrcl ol'thc sub.icct prctniscs was construction r idi' I'ile \o l0'18'\\'511019/3910' datecl I1 03 2020' L e.. ln rccorde.l irr \\ rit l)ctition No l80l I ol l0il3 ln thc said Writ prcrnises bearing No.6-2- l'17I and challenging the same, the petitioner filed \\,rit I,crition \o. i80l I ol'1013 and thc said writ Petition rvas dismissed by this Cirurt. vrde olders dated 04.07 2024. 11 . I.his ('oun has scrupulously gone through the entire order and the fl nclin gs Petitirrn. th i-s C.oLrrt. on both the pafiics. has catcg.oricalll'held as hereunder:- 'Tltat lt'tt.:,- hrts ht'ctt t'nlet't't! inlo helxet'n ttne Vanum Ramhobtt und,\4'.; Kt"naktt Dttsu lntlLtstries represenled bv "ts Proprietrix- Sanisherh .lleh.u. tlattghter o.f Sanislrcttl Srinivas'lu and not in thc ntrtrt,'ol rltt'paliriortt'r. trt cloimetl in lhe Wril a.ffidavit '/ t'totr,1/t T.tt,tirtortct. ltut/ t.laimed lrcrsel1. a t(,nont o./ lhe 'ttblt./ /)/.op.rt) un(t to .\.Lth,\/L t/tLttt ll.te uf Ut.t,.s,titl cluim being in t)..n/)u/it)n (),t llt( oior(,.\(titl p/?)pcrl.l.. llut/ enc.lo.setl Regisfratiott

Perusal of the record produccd before this cou't as weil as the findings rendered by this court in rhe ordcr dated 04.07.2024 passed in w.P.No l802 I ol 2023 disclose that originally the lease deed is entered between one Rambabu and M/s Kanaka l)urga Industries represented by Proprietrix- onc Sanishctty Alekhya. I rowcvcr. it is not in dispute that [he said Alekhya is the daughter of the petitioner. r-herefbre, the petitioner,s claim that she herself was the lessee ol the subject premises is factually incorrect and contrary to the records produced.

This Court finds that the petitioner relied upon GST registration document issued under GST Act, 201 7, pertaining to M/s Sri Satya Durga

This Court also takes note of the l'act that in the earlier proceedings, i.e.. in W.P No.l802 112023, this Court has categorically recorded its finding. as referred to supra. that the petitioner had attempted to mislead the Cour"t regarding her status in respect ol the subject prernises. Taking note of such conduct, costs rvcle irnposcd upon the petitioncr. -l'hc findings rendered therein clearly establish that thc petitioncr was neither the lessee under the lease agreement nor entitled to claim the status. as projected in the writ atfidavit.

It is not out of place to mention that earlier, Writ petition No.l 802 I of 2023 liled by the petitioner was dismissed imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 10.000/-. The petitionel Illcd Writ Appeal No. l j46 ol 2024 only againsr the imposition of costs and the salne carre to be disurisscd. T'hc pctitioner has not challenged the order rendered in WPNo. I802 I of 2023 on merits, therefbre, the findings rendered in the said Writ petition have become final.

Thus, in view ol the foregoing reasons, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Insol-ar as Oontcrnpt Casc is conccrncd, it is thc spc.cil'ic casc ol'the petitioner that on 08.02.202 I at abour ll:29 AM, the subor.dinates oj-

Counter is filed on behallol respondent No. I stating that respondent No. I came to know about the Orders passed by this Court in thc evening hours of 08.02.2021, but by that time, the stalf of respondent No.l have vacated the subject premises at about I l:00 AM by duly conducting Panchanarna in thc prcse.ncc ol'rcvenuc authoril.ics and thc policc and that it is false and baseless to state that locks ot'subject prernises were broke open highhandedly by respondent No. I in collusion with respondent No.

It is lunher averred that after obtaining perrnission lrorn municipal authorities. respondent No.2 commenced excavation work adjacent to the subject premises. because of which, the walls of subject building partly lell down and cracks have also bcen devclopcd the walls: that a notice dated ln 03.02.2021 , was issued ro rcspondent No.2 to rcrlovc gravcls in ftont o1- subject premises and also to petitioner to vacate the subject prernises as there is every chance ol collapse of sub.iect building, causing loss to the inmates, goods available in the premises, neighbours and passersby, however, as the petitioner refused Lo take notice, the same was pasted on the premises in the presence of local witnesses.

It is Iurther statcd that on requisition o1- respondenl No.l, the Police and revenue olficials visited thc subject prcrrises and asked the petitioner to vacate the subjcct properly. but the petitioner refused to vacate and hence, on 08.02.202 I at about lt:00 AM subordinates ofrespondent

It is lu:'ther strted that rcspondents acted :Ls per the Rules and Reguiations ol thc \lunicipalities Act. 20 l9 and action was taken only to avoid danger and loss to the occupants, neighbours and passerbl'and there is no c()llusiorr o: respondent No. I $ ith anybody and finally. it is stated that rcspolclents h:rr,c no intcltion to disobel the orcler-s of this court and pralcd to disrttiss thc ('ontenrpt Casc

A cotrntcr is tllerl b1 the rcspondent No.2. rvherein il ts inter alia stated that nrunicipal authorities issued notice date,l 0l .02.2021, under Section I 82 of thc 'lelangana Municipalitie s ,\ct. 201 9, to thc occupants of the subject mLrlgics as well as to V.Sambasiva Rao, who is the owncr ol the sub-iccr prcnriscs. to Vacatc thc subjcct prcmiscs itl view of dangerous and ditaJrirlatcrl condiriorr o1'rhc prcrlise.s. irrasrnuch as thc, ivestcrn side ol the subjccr prc,rises ancr o[her thrce rnuigies were collapsed and walls aiso

It is lurther stated that by the time, respondent No.2 and his son got knowledge of the Orders of this Court, the process of eviction and LNA, ] !! PNa.2711 al2021 & CCN1 20A ol2021 disrnantling of sr-rbicct prctrltscs \\as cornplcted and therclbrc. therc is no r iolation ot'()rders ol this Courl b; thc rcspondents. lt is f unher stated that Sangishetty,.\leky'a has entered into a lease agreement with respondent 18 one No.2 on 23.01.:015 and as per Clause No.l6 of the said agreement, the tenanl rs prohibited lionr transf'erring the lease to any other person, r.r'ithout written permission of the lessor; that by suppressing the same, and rnisrcprese nting the lircts. pctitioner filed a suit vr& C).S.No.30 of 202 l, on thc tlle ol' .lunior ('ir il .ltrdge . \algonda. against cr iction. but failcd to obtain an1 ordels. Iie tinalll subrnittcd that respondent No.2 and his son har e high respect to this Courl and lr'ould never venture to disobel" or I'iolatc the orders passcd b1 this courr and pral,ed to disrriss the contempt Case

Rcplr -al'trrlar ir is fllcd b} rhc pctitioner denying the averrnents made in thc counter. llccl by |cspondents and lurltrer'. it is stated that subject prerrises u as in good condition and the alle gation that the subject premises dilapidatt'd condition and posing danger to pLrblic and intnates is incorrcct. It is also denicd that Panchanama of the subject premises was conducLed at l1:()0 r\M on 08.02.102 I and that on a complaint lodged by rhc petitioncr. u c,rsc in cr.No.3 r or 202r was registered against respondent was ln N. r Lrndcr Sc-e Lions lr7 rnd 37g of Ipc on the flre of Nargonda Il-rbwn I,olicc. Stalion and fil.rhe r. rhc phorographs taken at I i:29 AM on 7 79 LNA,I WPNo 2711 ol2021 & CCN1.200 ol2021 08.02.2021 shows the presence ol stafl o1- respondcnt No. I carrying out eviction ol subject prcmises and thc subjcct premiscs was intact at about 2:14 PM; that petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No. I and the same was acknowledged by respondcnt No.l at about I :20 PM, therefore, respondent No.t is aware oltiling o1'W.P.No.27 ll of 2021 and also passing of Orders by this Court, despite which, respondent No.l demolished the subject premises, in utter violation of Orders of this Court. 31. -fhis Court gavc its earncst considcration to thc submissions rnade by the leamed counsel appearing on cither side and perused the material ava ilable on record

The scope of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is limited to the extent ol' examining whether there has been any willful, deliberate and intentional disobedience olthe order passed by thc Coufi by the alleged contemnors. Mcre non-cotnpliance or delaycd compliance. by itself. would not constitutc civil conLenrpt unless it is establishcd that the disobedience was willlul and contumacious in nature 33. lt is the specific case of the petitioner that despite Order dated 08.02.202 l, passed by this Coun. rcspondents have proceeded with the demolition of the subjcct premises in a highhandcd manner and in clear violation of the Orders passed by this Court. It is also the case of the INA ) WPNo.27l1oJ 2A21 & CCN) 200 ai ?421 petitioncr that Orders passcd bv this Court were infonned to respondents at 20 thcre tbre. thc contc ntiotl oi respondents that sub.iect premises are vacated and rlernolishcd betbre the\ came to know about the Orders passed by this abouL I :10 l)\1 and that suh.iect prerr-rises was intact evcn at 2:14 PM. coun is f'alsc and basclcss and therelbrc, respondents are liable to be punished lor violation o1'Orders of this Clourt 34. [)er colilra. it is Lhe casc of respondents that subject premises was vacatccl by dulr c6ndLrcting panchanarra at aboLrt I l:00 AM in the presence o1' Police and r.crenuc o1-llcials and rnaterial ll ing in the subiect prernises was shiftcd and kcpt saf'e cr-rstodl'at Arya Vysya Bhavan; that the Orders ln passecl b1. this ('ourr ri cre inlbrrned to them in the evening hours on prelrlscs \\ as 0g.02 102 I. and bi thar rime the eviction and demolition of the subject corlplctcd. thcrclbre. therc is no r"iolat:on of Orders ol this Court 35. lt is cr ide nt liotlr the rnatcrial placcd on record that rrr-rniciPal authorities hare issucd noticc dated 01 l-elangana Nlunicipaliiies ;\ct. l0l9 to V.Samba Shir a Rao i e ' son o1' 02.2011. under Section 182 of respondent No.2 and also a letter was addressed on the same dav to the SH(). ll-.lbr.r n Policc Station ro provide poiice protecti on on 02.02.2021 . to vacare rhe sub.lect p.cnriscs. fhc rnuniciparit_r,,has also issued notice dated

The petitioner has filed as many as five photographs of the subject prcrnises to substanl.iatc hcr contcrrtion about thc condition ol the subject prcmises at difl'erent timings on 08.02.202 I

It is a matter of common knowledge that date and time settings on mobile device can be configured rnanually also, in addition to automatic option. In other words, a user tnay, lor convenience or fbr the reasons best known to him/her, can manually set dare and time on their mobile device. In such circumstances, the date and tirne rel'lected on thc photographs cannot bc considered conciusi'c o' accu'atc. Anr. cricicncc sought to bc prodLrccd by electronic media must necessarill be substantiated or corroborated bv

In thc prcsent casc. the pctitioncr exccpt prodr.rcing the photographs anr othcr le liable icoo.crrt cr.'idence such as aflidavit ol any independent witness. Therefore. mere producing of'the photographs, without the same being supporlcd b1' anl indepcndent witness thereof, cannot be given due credencc inasrruch as thcrc is er crv possibilitl of Inaking changes in thc date and time settings in the gadgcts like mobile device/camera. etc to demonsttatc tlrc violatiorl ol'thc ordcrs by' thc resp'rndents' has not filed

Iu|thcr. it is pltlinctlt to notc that pctitiorrcr lt,dgcd a cornplaint tcr Orders passcd b1' this C'ourt not to demolish the subject premises. the DSI'. \algonda. on 08.01.1021. at about l:40 PN1 stating that inspite o1' resporrdents liar c r acated thc prcmiscs and demolished the salne at about l:30 P\1 highhandedlr and praled to take appropriate action.-l'hus, as per own adrnission ol thc petitioncr, the subject premises u as r acated and dcmolislteil ar abour l:10 Ir\1. therelbrc, it cannot be concluded that the sublcct prerriscs \\as intact crctl at l:21 [)l\1 only basing on the photographs lilcd by the petitioner and the date and time reflected in the said phorographs

F urther, it is also to be noted that the petitioner in the writ afldavit categorically stated that on 30.01.202 l, the subject premises was demolished at the instance o1'respondent No.3 and the mattresses lying therein wonh Rs.5 lakhs were stolen. In the complaint given to police in that regard, it is stated that backside rvall of'thc subject premiscs was demolished. Thus, there is inconsistency in the averments of the petitioner

Contcmpt proceedings are penal in nature and violarion of orders has to be proved beyond reasonable doLrbt, as held by thc llon'blc Apcr Courr in R,S.Sehrawat Vs. Rojeev Molhotra.t I.'urther, a Constitution Uench ol' IJon'ble Apex Court in the case ol'Bothino Ramtkrishno Retlely vs. stote of Madrts.z held thar "the power to punish.fbr contempt is ro he sparingll, used and should be used onlyfor protecting the interest of administration of justice. " 43. 1-he legal noticc dated 08.02.202 I scnt by the petitioner to respondent No. I through hcr advocate inti.ating ahrout passing ol' intcrirn ordcrs by this court was admittedly acknowledged by the otf ice olrespondent No. I at ' lzora; ro scc sze 'AIR 1952 sc r+g