Sneha Caterers, v. Sri Mamidi Hari Krishna

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO. 2020 OF 2015 ORDER:

In this contempt case, acrimonious allegations are made by the petitioner against the Secretary of the Ravindra Bharati alleging that the orders of this Court have been violated with impunity by him. Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner would assert that the equipment, articles, etcetera belonging to the petitioner have been recklessly thrown outside the canteen premises highhandedly by the respondent. Whereas, Sri Venugopal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that a properly worded notice has been delivered on 25.11.2014 to the writ petitioner calling upon him to vacate the premises by providing him two days time. Since, he has not given necessary undertaking as per the Court order, inspite of the same, he has not vacated.

In those circumstances, the belongings of the petitioner have been kept outside the canteen premises, but they were not thrown outside recklessly as alleged. It is further brought to my notice by Sri Venugopal that as of now the canteen attached to the Ravindra Bharati premises is run by the Telangana Tourism Organization and Haritha Snack Bar is run there. In that view of the matter, a serious exception need not be drawn to the fact that the respondent has not invited bids from the public for running the canteen.

Ravindra Bharati being a public premises, the State with a view to encourage the State owned Tourism Corporation to promote the interests of Tourism, if it authorizes the canteen to be run there, it may not amount to any contempt on the part of the respondent. Hence, I do

not prefer to proceed any further in this matter. However Sri A. Jagan has contended that that action of the respondent has caused lot of damage to the interests of the petitioner. If that be so, liberty is always preserved to the respondent to proceed against the competent authority for recovering damages by approaching the competent Civil Court.

With this, the contempt case stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 28.08.2015 sp