Item No.52
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
C.A.No.27 OF 2017
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. Mr. C.Satyababu, Commissioner, Miryalguda Municipality, is
present virtually before this Court today.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2017
passed in C.C.No.514 of 2017 filed by the respondent whereunder, it
has been held that he committed contempt of the order dated 13.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.41552 of 2016. As a result the appellant was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.
3. Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant explains that vide order dated 13.12.2016, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed with a direction to the appellant to comply with the earlier orders passed in W.P.No.19747 of 2016 and pass appropriate orders after noting the objections filed by the respondent/writ petitioner. Personal hearing was also directed to be granted to the respondent/writ petitioner. It was further directed that until a decision is taken and communicated to the respondent/writ petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
C.A.No.27 of 2017 Page 1 of 3 2
4. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the contempt petition with the grievance that despite the aforesaid order, the appellant committed contempt by bringing municipal vans to his premises and removing articles from the premises of the tenants in the subject premises on 15.03.2017.
5. It is stated by Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader that the aforesaid raids at the premises of the respondent/writ petitioner was not made specifically at the instance of the appellant. General directions had been issued to the staff of the Corporation to ensure that wherever there was a default in payment of municipal tax, appropriate recoveries be made prior to the end of the financial year in question. When it was brought to the notice of the appellant that the staff of the Corporation had seized goods from the premises of the tenants of the respondent/writ petitioner, immediate remedial steps were taken and the goods were returned within two days on 17.03.2017. Further, disciplinary action was taken against four erring officials. The orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the said officers have been filed along with the present appeal.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid explanation and noting that there is no other contempt proceeding pending against the appellant and nor has he been indicted in any other such proceeding, it is deemed appropriate to close the contempt appeal by setting aside the C.A.No.27 of 2017 Page 2 of 3 3 impugned order imposing the punishment of simple imprisonment on the appellant.
7. The appeal is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 17.03.2021 Lrkm/pln C.A.No.27 of 2017 Page 3 of 3