THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.745 of 2011 Dated 14th October, 2011 Between: Smt.Yarramilli Bhanumathi and another …Petitioners And Sri Penumatsa Suresh Varma and another …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 29.04.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.13169 of 2010, in W.P.No.10256 of 2010. The petitioners herein filed W.P.No.10256 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of the official respondents arrayed therein in not restraining the respondents herein, who are respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the writ petition, from converting their lands admeasuring Acs.5.26 cents in Survey Nos.172/2, 174/4, 172/3, 172/5 and 172/1 of Mogallu Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District, into fish tanks as illegal and arbitrary. This Court by interim order, dated 29.04.2010, while ordering notice to the respondents herein, restrained them from carrying on aqua culture without permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed W.V.M.P.No.3650 of 2010 seeking vacation of the said interim order. While the said application was pending, the respondents filed W.P.No.12000 of 2011 with the plea that as they have made applications to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Bhimavaram for permission on 27.01.2010 and 28.01.2010, they are entitled to the benefit of deemed permission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008, and secured an interim direction on 06.04.2011 restraining the respondents therein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of fish tanks. Alleging that the respondents failed to disclose the fact that the petitioners have already filed W.P.No.10256 of 2010, wherein the respondents suffered an interim order, and that the respondents have filed W.P.No.12000 of 2011 and obtained an interim order, which is in direct conflict with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10256 of 2010, the petitioners filed the present contempt case. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have pleaded ignorance in not disclosing the factum of pendency of W.P.No.10256 of 2010 and they have offered unconditional apologies. As this Court was not fully convinced with the reasons put forth by the respondents, they were given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed additional counter affidavit on his and on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein he has narrated the circumstances under which they failed to disclose pendency of the earlier writ petition and subsistence of interim order passed therein. It is useful to reproduce the explanation offered by them hereunder: “I submit that as stated supra, the department officials have already recommended on 27.04.2010 to grant permission for doing aqua culture. To know the stage of the application, I went to the office at Eluru and I was informed that the applications are still pending consideration. There I learnt that in similar cases where the applications for permissions are pending consideration, the Hon’ble High Court has granted interim orders and on coming to know of the same, the papers were entrusted to the counsel requesting for a similar relief. I submit that after receipt of the papers in the contempt case, we met our counsel and for the first time, we came to know that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the pendency of the earlier writ petition has to be mentioned. I submit that I have studied upto 10th class and my mother is a housewife and I am eking out my livelihood by doing agriculture. This is the first time we have approached the court and both of us are not aware of the legal procedure. I submit that we were not aware that the fact of pendency of earlier writ has to be mentioned in the affidavit and the non- disclosure of the said fact is not deliberate. The lapse on our part has occurred because of our ignorance of legal procedure and it was never our intention to suppress the fact and we sincerely regret for the lapse and offer our unconditional apology for non-disclosure of the fact in the writ petition filed by us. I submit that we undertake that in future, we will not repeat the mistake.” The respondents further stated that non-disclosure of pendency of the earlier writ petition and subsistence of interim order is neither wilful nor wanton. While tendering unconditional apologies, they have undertaken not to carry on aqua culture activity in the tank till the authorities grant permission after harvesting the prawns, which are left and of one month old. Even though there is a serious lapse on the part of the respondents in not disclosing pendency of the earlier writ petition, in which, they suffered an interim order, this Court is convinced that out of ignorance, they have committed the lapse and the same is not an intentional act to suppress the material fact. As the respondents have tendered unconditional apologies, apart from undertaking not to carry on further aqua culture activity after harvesting the prawns which are stated to be one month old at present, they purged the contempt, if any, committed by them. In the light of the above, the contempt case is closed by placing on record the undertaking given by the respondents as above. As a sequel to disposal of the contempt case, Application No.511 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th October, 2011 VGB