STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. PAPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case came up for hearing before us on 17-6-2002. The petitioner appeared in person. We heard him for some time but somehow he was not able to assist the Court. Therefore, he was asked to appoint a Counsel. The petitioner stated that he was not financially in a position to appoint a Counsel. We offered him the services of a Counsel sitting in the Court. The Counsel also agreed to appear for him without charging any fee, but, for reasons best known to the petitioner he did not accept the offer and made remarks about the Court stating that, "This is a colonial attitude of this Court and he is not being allowed to argue." We found the conduct and the assertions of the petitioner, prima facie, contemptuous and issued a notice to him. After this notice he filed an affidavit. Thereafter the case came up on 19-6-2002. On 19th June, 2002 the Court passed the following order:

(2.) Now, there are two questions before this Court one relating to the charge of contempt committed by the writ petitioner and the second whether the parties in person should be allowed to argue the matters in the Court and if so whether any parameters can be laid down.

(3.) Coming to the contempt first, the comments made by the petitioner when it was suggested to him that a Counsel would be appointed on his behalf have been narrated herein above. Thereafter he filed an affidavit. In this affidavit, after giving his account as to what had happened in the Court and stating that he could handle this case better, in para (f) of the affidavit he stated: