Shaik Rafi Ahmed v. Shri Sunil Dutt

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF JUNE rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 309 OF 2022 (Contempt Case Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for willfully Violating the order disobedience of the Order of the High Court dated 1511212020 passed in W.P.No.22656 of 2020 .

Between:

1. Shaik Rafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik lvladhar aged about 47 years, Occ- Private Service, Rl/o Sitarampuram village Mulakalapalli Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District

2. Shaik Shafi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, aged about 45 years Occ- Agriculture RJo Sitarampuram village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

3. Shaik Jabi Ahmed, S/o Shaik Madhar, Aged 40 years ,Occ- Private Service R:/o Sitarampuram village, Mulakalapalli Mandal , Bhadradri Kothagudem District ,..PETITIONERSMIRIT PETITIONERS AND

1. Shri Sunil Dutt, S/o not known to petitioner Superintendent of Police, Bhadadri Kothagudem

2. Shri.Suresh, S/o not known to petitioners, Station House of officer ,Mulakalapalli PS, Badadri Kothagudem ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No. 2& 3 Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. T SHARATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME & LAW The Court made the following: ORDER

_) _ HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.3O9 of2022 ORDER:

Heard Sri T. Sharath, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and learned Govemment Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents.

2.

This contempt is filed alleging that as per the terms of orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.22656 of 202O, dated 15.12.2022, respondents were required to provide Police protection to petitioners but they have not extended the Police protection, thereby, violating the directions of this Court. 3.

Along with the counter aflidavit, the deponent enclosed representations submitted ot 23.03.2022 and 24.03.2022. lt appears that on 23.O3.2022, after narrating the alleged instances of threats posed by opponents, petitioners requested to provide Police protection on 24.O3.2022 to enable them to fence their land. In compliance of the said request, Police aid was provided to petitioners and with the assistance of Police fencing was erected covering the land in issue. [n the representation dated 24.O3.2022, petitioners expressed their satisfaction with regard to the manner in which Police provided aid to them.

l4.

l,earned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that threat perception is continuing, there is continuous harassment, intimidation and physical assault by the opponents and sofar, 6 complaints were I'iled on such instances ald the respondents herein registered 6 crimes disclosing the unwarranted interference by the opponents but no action is taken so far. He would submit that respondents herein ought to have taken serious note and investigating into the complaints expeditiously.

5.

In paragraph No.4 of the reply affidavit ftled by petitioners, they state that respondents have only registered complaint on the basis of their representation dated 23.03.2022 but no positive action was taken.

6.

The above statement is contrary to what is stated in representation dated 24 .O3.2022.

7.

In terms of the interim order passed by this Court, what is required is whenever a Police protection is sought on a particular day or particular time in a day, the Police are required to provide aid in compliance ol the orders of this Court. It appears that on 23.03.2022 a request was made for Police protection on 24.03.2022 and accordingly, the Police aid was provided on 24.03.2022. All other complaints narrate the

-4incidents which took place earlier. Though those complaints are registered, investigation is still in progress. If there is slackness in investigation or taking lirm decisions to prevent the opponents from unnecessarily causing harm to the petitioners, it would be an entirely different exercise and it is for the petitioners to work out the same. It is not the subject of the orders of this Court.

8.

In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that there is deliberate or wilful violation by the respondents, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies on the alleged delay in concluding the investigation and in taking stringent action against the violators of [aw. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-A-V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secrr&v OFircen To,

1. One CC to SRt. T SHARATH Advocate [OpUC]

2. One CCs to GP FOR HqVE & LAW, High Court for rhe Stare of Tetangana, at Hyderabad [OpUC]

3. Two CD Copies

4. One Spare Copy CDA/ BS

\ HIGH COURT DATED:2410612022

ORDER

GC.No.309 of 2022 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE ,6 ':::

0 7 stP 2lll ,-^)- ( (\ \'_/ lv\ l\61 v'-