Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Advocate General, High Court Of A.P., ... vs Executive Engineer, R&B, Pithapuram, ... on 16 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD188, 1998(1)ALT209
ORDER
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J .
1. The District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, through his letter dated 18-9-1997 forwarded the letter of Subordiante Judge, Pithapuram to the High Court. The Subordinate Judge Pithapuratn in his letter dated 15-9-1997, addressed to the District Judge, Rajahmundry, informed that the Subordinate Judge's Court is housed in a private building, and in the Road widening scheme taken up by the R&B authorities, the building is being demolished and the work is in progress to an extent of 5 width, dust is entering into the Court Hall, there is no protection to the litigant public till the building is remodelled and parapet walls arc constructed on the Easterna side, since part of the existing building is being demolished on Eastern side. As the steps and stair case have been removed partly, there is no possibility for the litigant public to enter into the Court Hall and Electricity, Water and Telephone connections are disconnected. Therefore, there is no possibility to take up Court work for at least 15 days. On this, the matter was taken up as Writ Petition No.24627 of 1997. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondents, and notices were issued.
2. The sixth respondent who is the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, states in his counter-affidavit that information about dismantling of the privte building where the Subordinate Judge's Court is located at Pithapuram was not brought to his notice till Contempt Case was filed, and he is totally unaware of these happenings. The fifth respondent, Secretary to Government, R&B Department tendered his unconditional apology. The fourth respondent who is the Mandal Revenue Officer states in his counter-
affidavit that the Revenue Divisional Officer convened a meeting with the owners of the buildings situated on the road on 12-9-1997 in Mandal Revenue Officer's Office at Pithapuram, and the owners of the buildings, situated on the main road came forward voluntarily to relinquish their site of 5' abutting the road and also to remove the constructions if any found in that area.Sri D. V. Nooka Raju, owner of the building, where the Subordinate Judge's Court is housed, is also present and signed the resolution of 12-9-1997 to that effect. The Revenue Divisional Officer also informed the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, who was in charge of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Pithapuram over phone about the proposal of widening' of the road. The owner of the building himself started demolishing along with other building owners on 30-9-1997 basing on the markings made by the officials as per the resolution. He has not taken up any demolition of the said building, nor instructed the officials to demolish the Court building. However, he expressed his sincere apology for the act done by him. The third respondent is the District Collector. In his counter-affidavit he has more or less reiterated the same facts as disclosed by the fourth respondent,
3. The second respondent who was the Commissioner of Pithapuram Municipality at the relevant time states in his counter-affidavit that he has nothing to do with the removal of the buildings including the Court building at Pithapuram. But as the owners of the buildings have demolished portions of their buildings by engaging their own labour, since there are small drains on either side of the road, he deputed drain cleaners. However, he tendered apology unreservedly.
4. From the counter-affidavits, it is clear that Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 have demolished a part of the Sub-Court building at Pithapuram, East Godavari District which is a private building. It is also admitted that no written permission was obtained before resorting to demolition. The report of the learned Subordinate Judge shows that dust is entering into the Court Hall; there is no protection and thre is no access to the litigant public to the Court Hall as steps and stair case are removed partly. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that these respondents have caused obstruction to the functioning of the Court.
5. The learned Advocate-General submits that Court could not function for three days only as against the version of Subordinate Judge that Court work cannot be carried on for a period of 15 days. However, as these respondents have tendered unconditional apology, we deem it appropriate that some conditions should be imposed to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly respondents should requisition another suitable building for housing Subordinate Judge's Court, Pithapuram till a new building is constructed. Respondents shall meet the expenditure for transport of records, furniture and other material from the building partly demolished to another building for a short period and for retransportation to the original building again. We also feel that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation should be directed to be deposited for loss of Court work, as the work of the Court suffered for three days and the amount, should be deposited in Chief Minister Relief Fund within two months. Accordingly, the concerned respondents shall execute the lease deed in favour of the owner of the new building and take steps for construction of new building and deposit the sum of Rs.3 lakhs within a period of two months from to-day.
6. Subject to the above directions, the Contempt Case is closed.
Writ Petition No.24627 of 1997 :
In view of the order in C.C.No.1387 of 1997, no further direction in the writ petition is required. The writ petition is dismissed.