The initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requires the court to apply its mind to the allegations in the petition and decide to issue a show cause notice to the alleged contemner within one year of the alleged contempt.

JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Contempt application is filed by one Kishen Singh, son of Ramachander. The said Ramachander who is the son of Chunnilal was the first writ petitioner in W. P. No. 4250 of 1975. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge on 31-12-1977. The Board of Revenue and the District Collector, Hyderabad preferred Writ Appeal No. 509/77 which we have allowed today.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the writ appeal the petitioner Kishen Singh son of Ramachander filed W. A. No. 142/81 for reviewing an order dated 15-5-1979 made in W. A. M. P. No. 229/79. In the course of our judgment in W. A. No. 509/77, we have dealt with these miscellaneous petitions. In W. A. M. P. No. 229/79 an order was passed restraining the District Collector, Hyderabad not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, Kishen Singh. There was no order against the Municipal Corporation or others even though they were impleaded in W. A. M. P. No. 229/79 as respondents by virtue of orders in W. A. M. P. No. 141/81 and W. A. M. P. No. 145/81, with the result that the order of injunction dt. 15-5-1979 was effective against the District Collector, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) IT was in that situation that the petitioner filed W. A. M. P. No. 142/81 while two other persons, M/s. K. L. N. Prasad and Vadda Venkateswara Rao (who were respondents in the writ petition and Writ appeal) filed W. A. M. P. No. 138/81 to review the order in W. A. M. P. No. 229/79 dated 15-5-1979. (These latter two persons were not parties to W. A. M. P. No. 229/79.)

( 4 ) IN this contempt petition, we are concerned with the order dt. 27-2-1981 in W. A. M. P. No. 142/81 filed by the petitioner Kishen Singh, son of Ramachander in W. A. No. 509/77. In that order dt. 27-2-1981 a Division Bench of this Court directed the four respondents, including the Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the District Collector (Respondents 1 and 4 in this contempt case) not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner.

( 5 ) THAT order dt. 27-2-1981 is the foundation for this contempt case. It is alleged that the four respondents (1) Sri T. Anjaiah former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, (2) Smt. Sarojini Pulla Reddi, the then Minister for Municipal Administration, (3) Sri C. Arjuna Rao, Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and (4) Sri B. V. R. K. Murthy, District Collector, Hyderabad committed contempt of this Court by violating the order dated 27-2-1981 passed by this Court in W. A. M. P. No. 141/81. The violation is said to be on 5-7-1981. The contempt case is presented on 13-7-1981.

( 6 ) IT came up before a Division Bench of this Court on 12-8-1981 and the petition was dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2 namely the former Chief Minister and the former Minister for Municipal Administration but the contempt case was not admitted against respondents 3 and 4. The petition was adjourned on 12-8-1981 stating :"smt. Prasannakumari, undertook to file a better affidavit giving better particulars for initiating action against respondents 3 and 4. Post this application after the affidavit is filed. "thereafter this contempt petition has not been posted for admission till it came up before us now. The petitioners counsel states that she had filed a better affidavit as directed by the Bench into Court but the original affidavit is not available in the Court record. But the petitioners counsel gave us a copy said to be the copy of the affidavit dt. 26-8-1981 by the petitioner.

( 7 ) WHATEVER be the reason, the fact remains that the contempt petition has not been admitted by this Court so far as against respondents 3 and 4. It is admitted that there is no such order in the contempt case so far.

( 8 ) IT is contended for the respondents that this contempt petition cannot be admitted at this stage and that S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a bar to its admission.

( 9 ) THAT section reads :"no Court shall initiate any proceedings for conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document