THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WPMP NO.22811 OF 2010 AND WVMP NO.3320 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO.18054 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.1097 OF 2010 8th NOVEMBER, 2010 WPMP NO.22811 OF 2010: BETWEEN: S.Venkateswarlu and others … Petitioners. And The State represented by its Commissioner, Endowments, Ramkote, Hyderabad, and another. … Respondents WVMP NO.3320 OF 2010: BETWEEN: The State represented by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Dharmika Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. … Petitioners/Respondent No.1. And S.Venkateswarlu and others … Respondents/Petitioners/Respondent. CONTEMPT CASE NO.1097 OF 2010: BETWEEN: S.Venkateswarlu and others … Petitioners and J.S.V.Prasad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WPMP NO.22811 OF 2010 AND WVMP NO.3320 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO.18054 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.1097 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER The writ petition, W.P.No.18054 of 2010, was moved by way of a lunch motion on 26.07.2010, the urgency cited being the procedural violations alleged in the process of eviction of the petitioners from the subject premises. Two Miscellaneous Petitions were filed therewith. In WPMP No.22810 of 2010, the petitioners sought a direction to maintain status-quo prevailing as on 25.07.2010 at the subject premises pending disposal of the writ petition. No orders were passed on this application. In WPMP No.22811 of 2010, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to dump the machinery taken away from their custody at the subject premises at their cost pending disposal of the writ petition. As Sri S.Tulasi Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the machinery would be damaged if roughly transported and carelessly stored by the respondents, interim direction as prayed for was granted directing the respondents to dump the machinery at the cost of the petitioners. This order was passed on 26.07.2010 during the afternoon session. Alleging violation thereof, the petitioners filed Contempt Case No.1097 of 2010 on 30.07.2010. Seeking vacation of the said order, the first respondent in the writ petition, Commissioner of the Endowments Department, Hyderabad, filed WVMP No.3320 of 2010 on 02.08.2010. By order dated 08.09.2010 passed in the writ petition, it was directed to be posted along with the contempt case. Arguments were advanced in the vacate stay application and the contempt case by the learned counsel, Sri S.Tulasi Das, appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the vacate stay petitioner and Sri M.Naga Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, in the contempt case. Though it is now brought on record that the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission passed an order during the early hours of 26.07.2010, staying all further actions of eviction of the petitioners from the subject premises, the same was neither mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition nor was it brought to the notice of the Court during the hearing on 26.07.2010. On the other hand, in the writ affidavit the petitioners stated that their attempts to move a house motion proved futile, without adverting to the fact that they had already approached the Human Rights Commission for the same relief that they sought in the writ petition. This clearly demonstrates lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners. That apart, except for stating that they were not put on notice prior to their eviction from the subject premises, the petitioners did not choose to refer to the checkered litigative history preceding this case. The material filed by the Endowments Department in support of its vacate stay application indicates that as long back as in the year 1972, the occupants of the subject premises, including the petitioners, suffered an order of eviction. Various orders were passed by Courts at different levels in connection with this issue. Be that as it may, the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and the Endowments Department, in so far as their claims over the subject premises are concerned, is beyond the scope of the writ petition on hand. The only issue that falls for consideration in the writ petition is as to the violations, if any, on the part of the Endowments Department while seeking to evict the petitioners from the subject premises. That being so, the endeavour of the petitioners to enlarge the scope of the writ petition by way of their additional affidavit cannot be countenanced. In so far as the implementation of the interim order dated 26.07.2010 is concerned, as stated supra, it was due to the apprehension of the petitioners that their valuable machinery would be damaged by its rough treatment and storage by the authorities, that this Court granted an interim order. Significantly, no status quo orders were passed on the other application filed therewith. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the aforestated order, the authorities continued to shift the machinery and the same has not been restored to them till date. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, while admitting that the Regional Joint Commissioner of the Endowments Department initiated the process of removal of debris and machinery with necessary manpower on 26.07.2010 during the morning hours, stated that the petitioners themselves provided the required trucks for shifting the machinery. The registration numbers of the trucks so provided were also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the vacate stay application. While so, the petitioners are stated to have brought the stay orders passed by the Human Rights Commission at about 12.30 p.m. and the removal of the debris and machinery from the subject premises was stopped. According to the learned Government Pleader, by the time the order was passed by this Court during the afternoon session on 26.07.2010, the eviction process at the subject premises stood stalled pursuant to the order passed by the Human Rights Commission. However, the Officers of the Endowments Department are said to have proceeded to the site at around 8.30 p.m. on 26.07.2010 to ascertain the position on the site and noticing the trucks into which the machinery had already been loaded, the Officers were in the process of taking photographs for the purpose of record when they were attacked by some miscreants. A copy of the complaint lodged by the Superintendent of the Endowments Department in this regard, registered as FIR No.281 of 2010 dated 26.07.2010, is placed on record. The same reflects that information was furnished to the Gandhinagar Police Station at 11.45 p.m. on 26.07.2010 about the facts aforestated. Sri S.Tulasi Das, learned counsel, disputed the sequence of events as narrated supra. According to the learned counsel, the authorities acted in violation of the interim order passed by this Court and did not hand over the petitioners’ machinery to them till date. Relevant to note, the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission by its subsequent order dated 27.07.2010 directed that status quo as obtaining on that date should be maintained. The Commission however took note of the fact that this Court was seized of the issue in so far as the machinery was concerned and clarified that the same would not be part of the adjudication before it. The learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the aforestated order, the machinery which was stacked on the ground at the subject premises near the temple has been left intact and has not been touched. The issue in the contempt case is as to whether the respondents in the writ petition wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by this Court. The photographs placed on record indicate that the machinery was loaded into private trucks. The number of one truck being visible in the photograph tallies with the number AP-26-T-9223 furnished in the counter filed by the Endowments Department. This lends support to the version put forth by the Department. Normally, the Department would not engage private vehicles for the purpose of effecting such eviction and would resort to use of Government vehicles only. The vehicles in the present case are private vehicles as is evident from the photographs. Further, as the FIR demonstrates, the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission seem to have stayed the process of eviction even before an order was passed by this Court on 26.07.2010. The photographs further manifest that some amount of machinery is still lying at the subject premises. The interest and endeavour of the Endowments Department being essentially to secure the vacant possession of the subject premises by evicting the occupants therefrom, including the petitioners, there is no rationale or explanation as to why they would be interested in the machinery. In any event, the facts on hand do not demonstrate any willful or deliberate acts on the part of the respondents, including the Police, to violate or disobey the orders passed by this Court. In so far as the vacate stay application is concerned, the lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners, as aforestated, disentitles them to seek the protection of this Court in the present writ petition. The preponderance of Court orders during the past few decades being against them, the petitioners cannot seek the protection of this Court to perpetuate their possession or enjoyment over the subject premises. Their claims in this regard, if any, stood settled in the earlier rounds of litigation and cannot be re-agitated indirectly through these proceedings. As to whether there were any procedural violations during the process of the eviction is an issue which would figure for consideration in the main writ petition. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted fact that some machinery is still lying at the subject premises, the Endowments Department can have no objection to the removal of the same by the petitioners at their own cost. The interim order dated 26.07.2010 shall accordingly stand modified to the extent of permitting the petitioners to lift and carry away the machinery lying at the subject premises at their own cost. The same shall however be done under the supervision of the Endowments Department after due notice and intimation to them. WPMP No.22811 of 2010 and WVMP No.3320 of 2010 shall stand disposed of accordingly. Contempt Case No.1097 of 2010 is dismissed. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ______NOVEMBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WPMP NO.22811 OF 2010 AND WVMP NO.3320 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO.18054 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.1097 OF 2010 ______NOVEMBER, 2010