P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, through his letter dated 18-9-1997 forwarded the letter of Subordinate Judge, pithapuram to the High Court. The Subordinate Judge Pithapuram in his letter dated 15-9-1997, addressed to the District Judge, Rajahmundry, informed that the Subordinate Judge s Court is housed in a private building, and in the Road widening scheme taken up by the R and B authorities, the building is being demolished and the work is in progress to an extent of 5 width, dust is entering into the Court Hall, there is no protection to the litigant public till the building is remodelled and parapet walls are constructed on the Eastern side, since part of the existing building is being demolished on Eastern side. As the steps and Stair case have been removed partly, there is no possibility for the litigant public to enter into the Court Hall and Electricity, water and Telephone connections are disconnected. Therefore, there is no possibility to take up Court work for at least 15 days. On this, the matter was taken up as Writ Petition no. 24627 of 1997. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondents, and notices were issued.

( 2 ) THE sixth respondent who is the Secretary to Government, Revenue department, states in his counter-affidavit that information about dismantlling of the private building where the Subordinate Judge s Court is located at Pithapuram was not brought to his notice till Contempt Case was filed, and he is totally unaware of these happenings. The fifth respondent, secretary to Government, R and B Department tendered his unconditional apology. The fourth respondent who is the Mandal Revenue Officer states in his counter-affidavit that the Revenue Divisional Officer convened a meeting with the owners of the buildings situated on the road on 12-9-1997 in Mandal revenue Officer s Office at Pithapuram, and the owners of the buildings, situated on the main road came forward voluntarily to relinquish their site of 5 abutting the road and also to remove the constructions if any found in that area. Sri D. V. Nooka Raju, owner of the building, where the Subordinate judge s Court is housed, is also present and signed the resolution on 12 9-1997 to that effect. The Revenue Divisional Officer also informed the subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, who was in charge of the Subordinate judge s Court at Pithapuram over phone about the proposal of widening of the road. The owner of the building himself started demolishing along with other building owners on 30-9-1997 basing on the markings made by the officials as per the resolution. He has not taken up any demolition of the said building, nor instructed the officials to demolish the Court building. However, he expressed his sincere apology for the act done by him. The third respondent is the District Collector. In his counter-affidavit, he has more or less reiterated the same facts as disclosed by the fourth respondent.

( 3 ) THE second respondent who was the Commissioner of Pithapuram municipality at the relevant time states in his counter-affidavit that he has nothing to do with the removal of the buildings including the Court building at Pithapuram. But as the owners of the buildings have demolished portions of their buildings by engaging their own labour, since there are small drains on either side of the road, he deputed drain cleaners. However, he tendered apology unreservedly.

( 4 ) FROM the counter-affidavits, it is clear that respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 have demolished a part of the Sub-Court building at Pithapuram, East Godavari district which is a private building. It is also admitted that no written permission was obtained before resorting to demolition. The report of the learned Subordinate Judge shows that dust is entering into the Court Hall; there is no protection and there is no access to the litigant public to the Court hall as steps and Stair case are removed partly. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document