A judicial direction to 'dispose of a representation' does not mandate a specific outcome; if the authority considers the representation and takes a decision based on administrative or law-and-order grounds, it does not constitute willful disobedience or contempt of court.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for misleading this Court willfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court, dated 08.02.2024, in W.P.No.1703 of 2024.

The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows:

a. About sixty years ago, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple was constructed in the land in Sy.No.76(3) in Chinnadugam Village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner No.1 has been successfully conducting annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in the same village since 2017, as none expressed interest for the maintenance of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, including the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam District / respondent No.5 in the writ petition. The petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.1703 of 2024 is a committee registered vide No.18 of 2021, dated 20.01.2021. With the help of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2 successfully conducted the 59th annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in the year 2021. Even though the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.2797 of 2022 / sole accused in F.I.R.No.116 of 2021, as per the proceedings Rc.No.Nil, dated 02.02.2022, of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam District, did not file any rival claim to conduct the 60th annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in the year 2022, the respondent No.1 herein rejected the application of the petitioner vide endorsement RC.No.200/2022/E3/dated 01.02.2022 basing on a false report of Tahsildar, vide Rc.No.2022/A, dated 10.02.2022, and another false report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer dated 09.02.2022. After 2021, no F.I.R. has been registered under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against the villagers of Chinnadugam which is within the jurisdiction of Jalumuru Police Station. On 29.11.2023, vide acknowledgment dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to the District Collector, Srikakulam for granting permission and providing police aid to conduct the 62nd annual celebrations of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple. But, there is no action till the date of filing of the W.P.No.1703 of 2024. Therefore, the said writ petition was filed. On 08.02.2024, this Court passed the following order:

“…directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation providing all the proposed activities for which permission is sought, and thereafter, the concerned authorities shall dispose of the representation forthwith and if any particulars required are lacking in the representation, the concerned authorities may ask the petitioners to furnish the further details instead of keeping the representation pending for consideration, as the schedule date for the ceremonies is fast approaching…”

b. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 08.02.2024 through e-mail and another representation dated 09.02.2024 with the details of cultural activities and collected acknowledgment of receipt of representation. As there was no action by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on 13.02.2024, the petitioner No.1 issued a notice before contempt to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 under acknowledgment. Even then, there was no action by the respondents. On 13.02.2024, the respondent No.1 issued proceedings vide SR No.93/2024/JA(LC) / dated 13.02.2024, to the respondent No.2 and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Srikakulam District, as follows:

“… In this connection, it is pertinent to state that there is no specific direction from the Hon’ble High Court of AP in the above WP to the respondent authorities, to sent notice before contempt by the petitioner in the matter, and therefore, the question of issuance of notice before contempt by the petitioner to the Respondent authorities does not arise under law…

However, in view of the representation, dated: 08.02.2024 of the petitioner and ob