IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1112 of 2010 Between: Avatar Mehar Baba Perpetual Public Charitable Trust Yellareddypet village and mandal, Karimnagar district rep. by its Chairman Sri D. Prabhakar Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Shiva Shankar Reddy, Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar district and another ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 18-06-2010 in W.P.No.13674 of 2010. 2. The petitioner is a charitable trust in the name and style of Avatar Mehar Baba Public Charitable Trust Yellareddypet village and mandal, Karimnagar district, headed by Mr.D. Prabhakar Rao. The trust submitted representation dated 30-05-2010 seeking Police protection on the occasion of annual celebrations to be held on 27-06-2010. There being no action on the part of the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, and the Circle Inspector of Police (Rural), Sircilla, Karimnagar district, on the said representation, they filed W.P.No.13674 of 2010. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the representation dated 30-05-2010 submitted by the trust and take appropriate action. 3. The relevant portion of the order dated 18-06-2010 passed in W.P.No.13674 of 2010 reads as hereunder: “Since the limited grievance of the petitioner-Trust is with regard to non-consideration of the representation filed before the respondents on 30-05-2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 30-05-2010 and take appropriate action. No costs.” The petitioner filed the Contempt Case complaining disobedience of the said order. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any action on the representation dated 30-05-2010 despite the direction given by this Court in the writ petition. 5. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 04-08-2010. The second respondent filed counter and additional counter. 6. It is stated by the second respondent that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and the same has been disposed of informing the petitioner that it is not a fit case for the respondent-Police to provide Police protection to the said disputed land in view of the letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Yellareddypet village and mandal. According to the second respondent, he disposed of the said representation on 12-06-2010. Paragraph No.2 of the additional counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “I respectfully submit that it is true that the petitioner herein has submitted representation 30-05-2010 before the 1st respondent who inturn forwarded the same to this respondent through proper channel for enquiry and necessary action. I submit that for the purpose of enquiry into the representation of the petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police, Yellareddypet Police Station addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Yellareddypet mandal on 09-06-2010. On careful perusal of the letter and revenue records, the Tahsildar addressed a letter vide his Lr.No.B/2004/2006 dated 10-06-2010 stating that for the construction activities of Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust in the land measuring an extent of Ac.1-24 gts., in Sy.No.375 situated at Yellareddypet village, a W.P.No.27571 of 2009 is pending consideration on the file of the Hon’ble High Court and no construction activities are allowed in the said land. Basing on the letter addressed by the Tahsildar, the representation of the petitioner was disposed off accordingly on 12-06-2010. The same was communicated to the petitioner in person. To that effect an entry was made in the General Diary.” 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the representation dated 30- 05-2010 before the date of annual celebration on 27-06-2010 and thereby they violated the directing given in the writ petition. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the second respondent considered the representation dated 30-05-2010 and informed the petitioner regarding the disposal of the representation on 12-06-2010. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed on record the copy of the general diary with regard to the entries made on 12-06-2010. Item No.13 in the station house general diary relates to the disposal of the representation dated 30-05-2010 submitted by the petitioner. Besides informing the petitioner orally, the order has also been communicated to the petitioner on 29-09-2010 through Tahsildar, Yellareddypet village and mandal. The fact of the petitioner being informed on 12-06-2010 is also stated in the letter dated 12-11- 2010. The material brought on record indicates that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and appropriate decision has been taken on 12-06-2010. It amounts to substantial compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. 10. Therefore, the Contempt Case is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J January 28, 2011. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASENo.1112 of 2010 January 28, 2011