* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + Contempt Case No.826 of 2011 % DT.16.09.2011 # Syed Chand …Petitioner Vs. $ Mr.G.Prasad Rao … Respondent ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan ! Counsel for respondent: GP for Revenue < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.826 of 2011 Dated 16th September, 2011 Between: Syed Chand …Petitioner And Mr.G.Prasad Rao …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan Counsel for respondent: GP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 22.06.2009, in W.P.No.11401 of 2009. The petitioner filed W.P.No.11401 of 2009 with the grievance that the police have not been completing investigation and filing appropriate report in F.I.R.No.187 of 2008 on the file of the Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad. This Court by order, dated 22.06.2009, disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the Inspector of Police, Charminar Police Station to expedite the process of investigation and take steps to file charge sheet/final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging that the respondent failed to comply with the said order, as no charge sheet/appropriate report is filed, the petitioner filed this contempt case on 07.07.2011. This Court finding a prima facie case admitted the contempt case and ordered presence of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent was present on 02.09.2011, 09.09.2011 and also today. The respondent has initially filed a counter affidavit on 21.07.2011, wherein he has inter alia given the reason for non-filing of appropriate report as misplacing of CD file. As this Court is not satisfied with the said reason, the respondent was given an opportunity to file an additional counter affidavit. Accordingly, he has filed an additional counter affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated that when the order was passed in the writ petition one Karan Kumar Singh was the Inspector, that the respondent has taken over charge of the Inspector of Charminar Police Station on 23.12.2009 and that he was not aware of passing of order by this Court on 22.06.2009. He further averred that he came to know about the existence of such an order only after receiving legal notice from the counsel for the petitioner on 08.11.2010 and that immediately thereafter he has instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Sudhakar, to take up immediate steps for completing the investigation and that the said Sudhakar was transferred from Charminar Police Station to Commissioner’s Task Force, East Zone on 31.05.2011. The respondent further stated that he is relieved from the Charminar Police Station on 08.06.2011 and that on receipt of notice from this Court, he has verified the CD file and that the present Inspector of Police completed the investigation and filed final report in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad on 20.07.2011. The respondent has offered his sincere and unconditional apologies for the delay in filing the report. From the admitted facts, there is enormous delay in filing the final report. If there were administrative exigencies which rendered it not possible for the respondent to adhere to the time limit stipulated by this Court, it is his duty to apply to the Court seeking extension of time stipulated in the judicial order. It is a matter of regret that this practice is not being followed by any public servant. This case is therefore not an exception where the order passed by this Court stipulating time limit is delightfully ignored. It is time that the public servants realise their responsibility to adhere to the time stipulated by this Court or promptly make applications for extension of time limit wherever they find it difficult to adhere to such time limits. The learned Government Pleader for Home has pleaded that there is no deliberate violation of the order of this Court and that on account of the administrative exigencies as explained by the respondent, the delay has occurred. Taking a lenient view, this Court is inclined to drop further proceedings against the respondent, while accepting the unconditional apologies tendered by him. Subject to the observations, the contempt case is closed and the respondent is discharged from the contempt proceedings. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy, if he feels aggrieved by the final report filed in the criminal case. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th September, 2011 Note: LR copies to be marked. (b/o) VGB