IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE No.1552 of 2014 AND WRIT PETITION No. 23272 of 2014 BETWEEN Md.Afzal AND ... PETITIONER Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Razzakmanzil, Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Suo motu contempt case was directed to be registered on finding that orders of this court in W.P.No.2150 of 2014, dated 29.01.2014, was not complied with by passing appropriate order on the petitioner’s representation, on which a report was submitted by the Inspector Auditor Wakf, Warangal, on 17.07.2013. Since the time fixed for consideration and disposal as per the aforesaid order had expired long back, petitioner had moved another W.P.No.23272 of 2014 complaining of further inaction.
2. On 13.08.2014 learned Standing Counsel for the Board, who had taken notice, sought time to get instructions. After granting time twice, when the matter came up on 18.09.2014, again a further request was made. Hence, on finding that prima facie contempt is committed by the respondents, Registry was directed to initiate
suo motu contempt case and notice was issued to the Chief Executive Officer to be present for hearing on this date.
3. The contemnor is present along with the Standing Counsel and the learned Standing Counsel has placed before the court proceedings, dated 19.09.2014, issued by the Chief Executive Officer in due consideration of the representation of the petitioner as well as the consideration of the report of the Inspector Auditor Wakf, referred to above.
4. Since the petitioner’s representation is considered and appropriate directions are issued by the Chief Executive Officer on 19.09.2014, it is evident that the order of this court, referred to above, is belatedly complied with and albeit, only on issuance of notice of contempt. However, keeping in view that the order is complied with, further proceedings in the contempt case are not necessary to be pursued.
5. Since the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition stands fully redressed by the aforesaid proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, dated 19.09.2014, no further orders are called for in the writ petition.
6. The suo motu contempt case and the writ petition are, accordingly, dismissed. The Contemnor shall, however, ensure compliance of orders of this court in future within the time stipulated.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 22, 2014 LMV