IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No. 1978 of 2012 BETWEEN Syed Khaleelullah ... PETITIONER AND R.Krishnaiah and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) Nobody appears for the petitioner today.
2. On 11.07.2014 when we had heard this contempt case, we recorded the following order:
“Learned Advocate General filed counter affidavits on behalf of R4 to R6 denying that there is any violation of the order of status quo.
It is brought to our notice that PIL. Nos.366, 367 and 368 of 2012 were also disposed of by this Court by final order dated 11.02.2013.
In our view, therefore, in view of the said subsequent event and filing of the counter affidavit by R4 to R6, nothing further survives for consideration in the contempt case.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner is stated to be unwell and time is sought.
Hence, list ‘For Orders’ on 01.08.2014.”
3. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5, specifically state that all necessary precautions are taken to see that order of this court is implemented in true spirit and that the respondents have succeeded in the same. It is also stated that the imposition of prohibitory orders under the Criminal Procedure Code and detention of some of the public representatives was only to maintain peace and harmony in the State, in particular, the locality of Charminar and that there is no violation of orders of this court.
4. As already recorded, since PIL Nos.367 and 368, out of which this contempt cases arises, were already disposed of by this court on 11.02.2014 and the peace and harmony exists since the date of order, which is subject matter of this contempt, nothing further survives for consideration in the present contempt case.
Contempt case is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J S. RAVI KUMAR, J August 1, 2014 LMV