HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.5681 of 2010 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 03) 02-07- 2010 CVNR, J WPMP.Nos.19193 & 19194 of 2010 WPMP.No.19193 of 2010 is filed to set aside order, dated 26-03-2010, in WP.No.5681 of 2010 and WPMP.No.19194 of 2010 is filed seeking suspension of operation of the said order. These two applications have been filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in WP.No.5681 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was filed by non-applicant No.6 in these applications viz., Karwan Youth Welfare Association with the grievance that in spite of the requisition given by respondent No.4- Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section Circle VII, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, for protection to demolish the alleged unauthorized structure, the Police have not been providing protection. At the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that such a protection was made available on two occasions i.e., on 02-02- 2010 and 02-03-2010 by respondent Nos.3 and 4; that due to paucity of time protection could not be given on the first occasion and on the second occasion, the Police went to the place in question on 06-03-2010, which is the date fixed for demolition, and that as the Police have not found the officials of the Municipal Corporation at the spot, they could not provide protection. She has further stated that as and when respondent No.3 makes a request, the Police will provide protection. This statement of the learned (pto.,) CVNR, J (contd…) Assistant Government Pleader was placed on record and the Writ Petition was disposed of. In the present applications the applicants In the present applications, the applicants have submitted that even before notices were served on them, the Writ Petition was disposed of and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. In the afore-mentioned order, this Court has not adjudicated the issues raised by the petitioner on merits and no opinion has been expressed by the Court as to whether Police protection needs to be given for demolition of the structures in question or not. All that was done by this Court was to record the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and close the Writ Petition. Therefore, there is no warrant to set aside the order passed by this Court as, in the opinion of this Court, respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the Writ Petition are in no way affected. Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the order passed in the Writ Petition is being misconstrued by the Police and Municipal Corporation. I n my opinion, there is no scope for misconstruing this order as nothing therein would indicate that any mandatory direction was given to the Police to provide protection. The applicants are always entitled to question the act of proposed demolition by availing appropriate remedy in a Court of law. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these applications and the same are accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE BN, J & GC, J (Contd…) The learned single Judge found that respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition were not eligible to be promoted and they had been promoted although they were ineligible. Respondents 2 to 4 have, now, filed an appeal with a delay of 164 days. Let the respondents file their counter to the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE There has been no stay of the judgment of the learned single Judge. But the judgment of the learned single Judge is not being implemented from 29-12--2004. On last occasion also, we have told the learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment needs to be implemented, and today, she has produced a copy of the letter received by Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. This letter is nothing but an attempt to defeat the judgment of this Court in avoiding to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion. The relevant portion of this letter reads as SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE relevant portion of this letter reads as under: ‘Once the vacancies a r e cleared, we are interested to consider the case of Mr.D.Harinatha Reddy, as it was submitted to the Court. Hence, we request you to put forth (P.T.O.,) BN, J & GC, J (Contd…) the above information before t h e Court and request learned Judge to give time up to March, 2006. We request you to use your good office to appraise the Court and to protect Bank’s interest’. This letter merely says that once the vacancies were cleared, the Bank was interested to consider the case. It nowhere shows any urgency to implement the order of the Court. Vacancies can be cleared after decade or two decades. Therefore, we feel that the appellant in this appeal is, prima facie, in Contempt of this Court. Issue notice to the appellant-Sri P.Gopala Krishna, Chairman, Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Chittoor, as to why Contempt Proceedings be not initiated against him. He shall file counter within two weeks and shall remain present on the next date of hearing. List on 21-03-2006. ​______________ 07-03- 2006 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 This application has been filed by respondent No.3-applicant seeking extension of time and also seeking prayer that the respondents should give a set off fo r Rs.93,31,706/- (Rupees ninety three lakhs thirty one thousand seven hundred and six only) which according to him are the losses suffered by him. That is a matter, which will have to be gone into before taking a decision on the question whether the petitioner suffered any losses and if so, whether he is entitled to recover those losses in these proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot allow the prayer of the applicant that he should be permitted to deposit only Rs2,06,68,294/- (Rupees two crores six lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred and ninety four only) and not Rs.3.17 crores. At this stage, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE submits that the applicant has no objection if the property is put to fresh auction, but it should not be taken as adjudication of his claim to the compensation and losses. BN, J & SAR, J (Contd…) This issue will be decided after a counter is filed to the present application. As far as the extension of time is concerned, the request of the applicant is rejected and the official liquidator is at liberty to put the property to fresh auction as the applicant has also conceded that fresh auction may be allowed. The applicant also will be entitled to participate in the fresh auction. The Earned Money Deposit (EMD) already paid by the applicant to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs, when the property was put to auction earlier, may be returned to the applicant. ​ ______________ 03-02-2006 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE