HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Contempt Case No.1535 of 2014 Date: 01-12-2014 Between:
K. Anitha Kumari .. Petitioner AND Ammineni Kishore and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Contempt Case No.1535 of 2014 ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the order dated 28-01-2014 in WPMP.No.1927 of 2014 in W.P.No.1620 of 2014 by the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.
This Court on 28-01-2014 granted interim direction in WPMP. No.1927 of 2014 in W.P.No.1620 of 2014 directing the respondents not to interfere with the business, possession and enjoyment of the petitioner Stall No.115 of Rythu Bazar, Swaraj Maidan, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said interim direction is in operation, the respondents have come and demolished the stall No.115 allotted to the petitioner at the instance of concerned Minister.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture filed counter stating that the petitioner is continuing in Stall No.115 in Rythu Bazar as on date and she is doing business in the said premises. He also produced some proceedings stating that the petitioner is continuing in the same stall at Rythu Bazar. He further contends that when a batch of similar writ petitions were dismissed by this court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and hence, the present contempt case is not maintainable.
In opposition to the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand
[1]
and others contending that even though the main writ petition is dismissed, when an interim order is in operation, contempt case lies for violation of the said interim order during the period when the said order is in force.
Prima facie, in the counter filed by the respondents, the respondents have clearly stated that the petitioner is still running her Stall No.115 in Rythu Bazar and the same can be seen in the photograph attached to the counter. Whether the stall of the petitioner was demolished nor was it shifted to another place is not clear in the said photograph taken at the place where the petitioner is doing her business. Since this is a contempt case, the petitioner has to clearly prove that the respondents have violated the orders of the court. In view of the assertion made by the respondents in the counter affidavit and the proceedings produced by the respondents that the petitioner is still running her business in the said Stall No.115, the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case that the respondents have violated the orders of this court, and hence, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 01-12-2014 Ksn [1] (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 261