HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1800 of 2011 Date: 30.12.2011 Between: B.V.S.K.Satya Prasad ..... Petitioner And: Ms.Y.Sirisha .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This is a frivolous and vexatious piece of litigation indulged in by the petitioner by filing this Contempt Case. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24498 of 2010 questioning order, dated 26.07.2010, appointing respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition as the Executive Officer In-charge of the temple in question. By order, dated 01.10.2010, this Court has granted an order of status quo. Respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition filed vacate stay application, on which this Court has passed order, dated 28.02.2011. While negativing the plea of the petitioner that appointment of Executive Officer of the temple in any way affects his rights, this Court has observed that in the absence of a Trust Board and being the recognized member of the founders family, the petitioner is entitled to discharge the functions of the Board of Trustees under the third proviso to Section 15(1) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, while vacating the order of status quo, this Court having observed that serious allegations were made against the Executive Officer whose appointment was questioned in the Writ Petition, directed respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition to consider posting of any other officer as Executive Officer in place of respondent No.2 therein. In the present Contempt Case, the petitioner alleged that the said order of this Court is violated by the respondent as she has not complied with the provisions of Section 29(3)(a) of the Act. In filing this Contempt Case, the petitioner seems to have take shelter under the observations of this Court contained in the following portion of the order: - “In the impugned order, respondent No.1 stated that in the interests of better administration of the institution and having regard to the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, respondent No.2 is appointed. Even assuming that the copy of the purported report of the Assistant Commissioner was not supplied to the petitioner, in my opinion, by appointing the Executive Officer, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner’s interests. In the absence of a Trust Board and being the recognized member of the founders family, the petitioner is entitled to discharge the functions of the Board of Trustees under third proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act. Under Section 29(3)(a) of the Act, the Executive Officer shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by the trustee from time to time. In view of these provisions, the rights of the petitioner are not in any way affected by the appointment of respondent No.2. However, since serious allegations have been made by the petitioner against the present incumbent of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the posting of any other officer as Executive Officer in place of the present incumbent. This direction, however, shall not mean that this Court has accepted all the allegations made by the petitioner against the present incumbent.” The above-noted observations of this Court were made in the context of repelling the plea of the petitioner that appointment of Executive Officer in any manner affects his interests. There was no direction issued by this Court that the Executive Officer should follow the provisions of Section 29(3)(a) of the Act even though such an obligation is cast on her. As the context for giving a direction to follow the provisions of Section 29(3)(a) of the Act did not arise in the Writ Petition, such a direction was not issued. Even assuming that the respondent has not been following the lawful directions of the petitioner, he is entitled to avail appropriate remedy to ensure that the respondent follows such directions. Instead of availing such remedy, the petitioner has indulged in vexatious act of filing the Contempt Case, obviously, with a view to threaten the respondent, a public servant, who is appointed to discharge the functions of the Executive Officer of the temple to yield to his authority. This Court is convinced that the petitioner indulged in abuse of process of Court in filing this Contempt Case. Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed. For indulging in vexatious litigation, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of one month from today. If such payment is not made, the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, shall recover the same through legal process. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th December 2011 DR