IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR : PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. DEVINDER GUPTA THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON`BLR MR. JUSTICE: C.V. RAMULU SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE NO. 656 OF 2004 IN RE Sri Chaparla Seetharam, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (Suo motu Contempt Case filed Under Article 215 of he Constitution of India U/s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 5(1) of the Contempt of Court, Rules) Whereas Sri Chaparla Seetharam, Advocate on 01-06-2004 in the 5th Vacation Court before the Honourable Sri Justice C.Y. Somayajulu has said that the court was issuing orders seeing the faces of the Advocates without noticing the urgency in the cases, and when asked to explain he said that he was issuing a Notice of Contempt against the Court; The Hon`ble Court has taken Suo Motu Cognizance of the Statement made by the Advocate Sri Chaparla Seetharam, against the Hon`ble Court observing that the statement prima facie is a case of Contempt and directed to issue Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against the said Advocate; The Suo Motu Contempt Case coming on for hearing upon perusing the Case and affidavit filed herein and order of High Court dt. 1-6-2004, 2-8-2004 & 16-8-2004 and made herein, the Court made the following ORDER: Whatever has been stated by the contemnor in the affidavit, there is no reference as to whatever reflected in the order of the learned single Judge dated 1-6-2004, who directed that matter be dealt with by initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against the contemnor, who is a practicing Advocate. In the affidavit, whatever has been transpired in the Court has to be reflected, but it is not reflected. We have given an opportunity to the contemnor to file any further affidavit containing the details as to what transpired in the Court. The contemnor has not opposed to file any affidavit, but says that he has been humiliated by initiating contempt proceedings and this Court issued warrant against him. We may also notice the fact that against the alleged Contemnor, on earlier occasion also, contempt proceedings in C.C.No. 492 of 2003 were initiated, but the same were closed on the contemnor offering unconditional apology. We will give another opportunity to the contemnor to file a reply affidavit tendering unconditional apology making a reference to the order dated 1-6-2004 passed by the learned single Judge and as to what transpied in the Court. List the matter on 9-11-2004. DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. Sri Chaparla Seetharam, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (By Special Messenger) 2. Two spare copies. TKK HIGH COURT HCJ & CVRJ DATE: 5-10-2004 ORDER C.C. No. 656 of 2004 DIRECTION HIGH COURT TKK Date of drafting: 8-10-2004. HCJ & CVRJ DATE: 5-10-2004 NOTE: List the matter on 9-11-2004. ORDER C.C. No. 656 of 2004 DIRECTION