THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.137 of 2011 Dated 16th September, 2011 Between: Smt.Koyya Appala Kondamma …Petitioner And Mr.A.Srinivasa Rao and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Lakshminarayana Counsel for respondents: GP for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 27.08.2009, in W.P.No.17959 of 2009. The petitioner is a party to the civil litigation with the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), which is presently pending in S.A.No.661 of 2009 in this Court. This Court by order, dated 17.07.2009, in S.A.M.P.No.1471 of 2009, directed both the parties to maintain status quo. When the respondents are allegedly interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s property, she has filed W.P.No.17959 of 2009 for a mandamus to declare their interference in civil disputes pertaining to the land to an extent of Acs.2.00, which is subject matter of the second appeal, as illegal. This Court by order, dated 27.08.2009, disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in dispute without following due process of law. While giving the said direction, this Court has taken note of the fact that in the second appeal, this Court has passed an order to maintain status quo by both the parties. Alleging that despite the said order of this Court in the writ petition, the respondents have deputed police personnel to assist the officials of the GVMC to dispossess her and that accordingly on 21.07.2009, she was forcibly dispossessed from the property in question, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated that the Commissioner, GVMC addressed letter, dated 22.01.2011, stating that the petitioner has been trying to occupy the land meant for park for the last three decades and that in the guise of the order of status quo granted by this Court, she is trying to create evidence of her possession as a part of which her lawyer has issued a telegram stating that the GVMC is trying to dispossess his client. That on considering the said letter, respondent No.1 has provided police protection on 25.01.2011 between 3.00 pm and 5.30 pm, after making an entry in the general diary and in the presence of the police personnel, GVMC officials requested the watchmen to leave the site and accordingly, they have fixed their board stating that the land belongs to GVMC. From the undisputed facts, it is quite evident that on the grievance expressed by the petitioner that there was undue interference by the police in the civil disputes, this Court has directed the respondents not to cause such interference in view of subsistence of order of status quo in the second appeal without following due process of law. Respondent No.1, therefore, ought to have been circumspect in acting upon the letter addressed by the Commissioner of GVMC, who after all is one of the parties to the civil litigation and on whom an order of status quo granted by this Court in the second appeal is binding. If the Commissioner felt that the petitioner was trying to create evidence of her possession, he ought to have moved this Court in the pending second appeal and requested for passing appropriate orders. Instead, he approached the respondents with a request to grant police aid. In such a situation, respondent No.1 ought not to have fallen prey to such request and should have stayed away from interference, unless an order was passed by this Court directing granting police aid. I have, therefore, no doubt whatsoever to conclude that respondent No.1 has acted with indiscretion without giving due regard to the unequivocal direction given by this Court. But, the question is whether respondent No.1 has acted in deliberate or wilful violation of the order of this Court. The contempt jurisdiction, it is trite, is quasi criminal in nature and unless the intention of the violator of the order is shown to be wilful, no punishment can be awarded. In this case, the party at whose instance police aid is given is GVMC. Obviously, this would have weighed with respondent No.1 in giving police aid, as the Commissioner of GVMC has pleaded that a private party is seeking to encroach the public park and that in the public interest, he is seeking police aid. This Court views this as a extenuating situation to give benefit of doubt to respondent No.1 and accept his plea that his act is in furtherance of public interest without the same being unintentional or deliberate. Even though this Court has strong reservation against the said act of respondent No.1, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to drop further action against him, while accepting his explanation and the unconditional apology rendered by him, however, with a warning to him not to repeat such conduct in future. The petitioner is left free to seek appropriate orders in the pending second appeal to protect her possession. The contempt case is accordingly closed and the respondents are discharged from the contempt proceedings. As a sequel to disposal of the contempt case, Application No.134 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th September, 2011 VGB