HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1067 OF 2014
DATED: 22.07.2014 Between:
Mohammad Yusuff … Petitioner And Mr. Babu Ahemed, ITA and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1067 of 2014 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This Contempt Case has been filed with the following prayer.
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to summon the respondents 1 to 3 herein and punish them for non-implementing the orders passed in PIL.No.234/2013 Dt.8.7.2013 in its full spirit under Sec.10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act in the interest of justice.”
While taking note of the prayer, we have seen the related statement in the body of the affidavit.
“I submit that though I sent a notice Dt.9/12/2013 wherein and where under I specifically brought to their notice that he is running the clinic in spite of notice Dt. 13.7.2013, the acts on the part of the 3rd respondent by in permitting 9th respondent in Writ Petition to run the “Janatha Clinic” as usual amounts to willful disobedience of the orders passed in PIL.No.234/2013, Dt. 8.7.2013.”
There is no charge of willful and deliberate violation of the order, much less particulars of act of contempt, when we take note of the statement in the body of the affidavit. In our order, dated 08.07.2013, we find that we have not given any mandate to the District Medical and Health Officer not to allow respondent No.9 in the Writ Petition to run the clinic. The operative portion of our order reads as follows:
“Under the circumstances, we direct the District Medical & Health Officer, Adilabad to enquire into the matter pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner dated 04.12.2009 in Annexure-P1 enclosed to the petition. After enquiry, if it is found that the allegations made in the complaint are correct, necessary legal steps are to be taken and before such steps are taken, an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to respondent No.9.”
We are of the view that the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner are not good enough to initiate contempt proceedings. Thus, we refuse to entertain the Contempt Case with the material available on record.
The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. However, leave is given to the petitioner to file a fresh case in accordance with law.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
22nd JULY, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
kvni