This contempt case is filed for punishing the respondents for the alleged violation of order dated 24.04.2008 passed in WPMP.No.11914 of 2008 in WP.No.8988 of 2008 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act').

2. The petitioner is a Cinema theatre in Nizamabad town. On 17.04.2008 at 8.00 p.m., the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad (for short, 'the SDPO') conducted a surprise check of the theatre. He seized some film reels and a cinema poster on the allegation that the theatre was exhibiting an bsence film and that the said film did not contain censor certificate, under a panchanama signed by two revenue officials, namely, Sri Gaddam Gayendhar Reddy, Revenue Inspector, Office of the Tahsildar, Nizambad and Sri Ch. Buchanna, VRO, Nizambad. On the basis of the complaint given by the SDPO, a criminal case was registered as FIR 88 of 2008 by the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Nizamabad (for short, 'the SHO') on the same day at 10.00 p.m. for the offences under Sections 292 and 294 IPC, Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 7 of Cinematograph Act, 1952. Two persons by name Chakati Ashok, Manager of the Theatre and Sardar Birender Singh, Projector operator were shown as A2 and A3 and produced before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, on 18.04.2008.

3. The petitioner filed WP.No.8988 of 2008 in this Court on 21.04.2008 for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District (respondent No.1 in this contempt case), the SDPO, Nizamabad and the SHO, I Town Police Station, Nizamabad in seizing the theatre. In his affidavit, the licensee of the petitioner specifically averred that on 17.04.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., the SDPO along with other police officials seized the theatre and took away the keys without depositing them anywhere and that they have no such power of seizure. In WPMP.No.11914 of 2008, the petitioner sought for a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to remove the seals of the theatre for screening the films.

4. The writ petition along with the WPMP came for admission and hearing on 23.04.2008. In the wake of the specific plea raised in the writ petition by the petitioner about the alleged seizure and absence of any such power in the respondents, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, who was present in the Court, at the hearing, sought for a day's time for getting instructions. Accordingly, the writ petition was adjourned to next day. On 24.04.2008, when the case was called, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the police have not locked and sealed the petitioner theatre. This statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader was strongly contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He stated that after switching off the lights in the theatre on 23.04.2008, respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition locked the theatre premises again and took away the keys with them. Having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, passed the following order in WPMP.No.11914 of 2008 on 24.04.2008. "Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the police have not locked and sealed the petitioner - theatre. Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, denied this statement and submitted that after switching off the lights on 23.04.2008, respondents 3 and 4 locked the premises again and took away the keys with them. In view of the categorical statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that respondents 3 and 4 have not locked the premises, the petitioner shall be free to use the premises, if necessary by breaking open the lock."

5. On 28.04.2008, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. In his af