C.Satyababu, Nalgonda Dist. vs Pailla Gopal Reddy, Nalgonda ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 820 Tel

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.

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

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