A. Laxminarayana v. A Gopal Reddy

I l i I [ 321e ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD I I MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR I I I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2590 OF 2023 I contempt case Under section 10 to '12 of contempt of courts Act, to punish the respondents for deliberate violation and willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble court dated 06-06-2023 in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in w.p.No.13105 of 2023. Between:

A. Laxminarayana, S/o. A. Chandraiah Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired Sl of Police, Cyberabad Unit, R/o. H.No. l1-13-198t3t211i, Green Hiils Colony, Road No.3, Kothapet, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER AND A Gopal Reddy, S/o Late Balakrishna Reddy Aged about 7g years, Occ. Secretary Bhadratha, R/o Telangana State police Department, Employees Benevolent and Thrift M,utual Association, DGp,s office Complex, ain Ftoor, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

l ..1: .:.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2 in Wp Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl VEROSE SANJANA Counsel for the Respondent :SRl l.V. RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOIIRABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE NO.259O OF 2023 ORD ER This Contempt Case IS filed atleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dt.06.06.2023 in I.,4..No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No. 13105 of 2023 2.

This Court finds that there was an interim direction to respondent No.2 not to maKe any further recoveries from the sureties pending disposal of the W rit Petition.

3.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner alleged that in spite of passing the said order, IIMIs were continued to be deducted from the salaries ol the sureties ol the petitioner by the respondents till the date of filing of the Contempt Case, i.e., 24.11.2023. The petitioner therefore alleges wittful disobedience of the orders of this Court by the respondents. He submitted that the EMI amounts were deducted from the two sureties of the petitioner, namely, (1) P.Yesu Babu, PC-1724 afi (2) P.Kaza Vali, PC-3967 and accordingly six months EMs were deducted, i.e., an

C-C.No.2590 of 2023 amount of Rs.8,890/- from each surety, i.e., total amount of Rs.l6,l78lfrom both the sureties. 4.

On service of notice, the sole respondent herein, who is respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition, filed a counter afhdavit stating that he is not the implementing authority and therefore, he is not deducting the amount from the salary of the petitioner or his sureties. It is stated that Bhadratha is a society registered under the Societies Act and is purely a private body and that the petitioner and his sureties are working in Police Department and therefore, their respective Unit Officers are responsible for deductions from the salaries of the sureties. It is stated that the Unit Officers of the first surety is Telangana State Police Academy and that of the second surety is Commissioner oF Police, Cyberabad and it is thus denied that there was any violation of the directions of this Court by the respondent in the Contempt Case.

5. In view of these submissions, this Court, vide orders dt.12.07.2024, had directed respondent No.2 to fumish a copy of the correspondence between respondents No.2 and 3 in the Writ Petition to show that respondent No.2 has acted bona fide. [n compliance thereof, respory[ent No.2 has filed a Memo on 20.09.2024 giving details of the .,

C.C.No.2590 of 2023 J correspondence between respondent No.2 and the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and the Director of the Telangana Police Academy, Hyderabad. It is rroticed that the interim order was passed on 06-06.2023 and vide letter d:. I 5.07 .2023 , the Unit Head was informed of the High Court order and it was informed that Bhadratha has no option to stop the recoveries fronr sureties and the salaries were paid by the respective officers and the :ecoveries which are effected from the sureties towards house loan takerr by Sri Laxminarayana, SI (Retd) are to be stopped as per the orders ol'the High Court. The Unit Officer of the second surety was informed accordingly. There is no such communication rvith regard to the Unit Olficer of the first surety.

6.

Leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition, i.e., thr: sole respondent in the Contempt Case ha-s also filed copies of the communicatiors dL22.07.2024 ifforming that the entire loan amount has been recovered from the retirement benefits of Sri A.Laxminarayana and the NOC along with original documents were already sent to the Unit Officer with a request to stop recovery of EMIs from the surety and further that an amount of Rs.33,807/- which was excess received from each of the sureties was being refunded by way of cheques No.930526 and 930527 dt.22.07.2024 to be handed over to the

/\ C.C.No.2590 of 2023 respective sureties. It is thus submitted that the recovery from the sureties was only on account of miscommunication of the orders and it was not deliberate and the amount recovered from the sureties has already been refunded to them.

7 .

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the sole respondent in the Contempt Case had acted bona fide by communicating the orders of this Court to the Unit Officers who are respondents No.3 and 4 in the Writ Petition. However, respondents No.3 and 4 have continued to recover from the salaries of the sureties in violation of the directions of this Court. The subsequent refund of the amounts to the sureties would not absolve respondents No.3 and 4 from the offence of Contempt of Court. However, the petitioner has not made respondents No.3 and 4 in the Writ Petition as contemnors in this Contempt Case and therefore, without affording an opportunity of hearing, no action can be taken against them under the Contempt of Courts Act. Since the entire amount has been refunded to the sureties and the entire loan amount has been recovered from the retirement benefits of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to close the Contempt Case against the respondent herein

C.C.No.2590 of2023 The Conternpt Case is accordingly closed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Contempt Case shall also stand closed.

Sd/- K. SAILESHI //TRUE COPY// DEPU REGISTRAR \ t \ I To, SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRt VEROSE SANJANA, Advocate tOpUCl one CC to SRt t V RADHAKRTSHNA t\ruRiilV:;;vocate 1oeuc1 Two CD Copies J AR/gh J I

HIGH COURT DATED:3011212024 I l- /--=-=-_\.

i,l;

t_i') w5 i.. ,,

ORDER

+ c\r.

hrcHeO a CC.No.2590 ot 2023 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT GOSTS.

2r)o,\,r- \0>